|
Saturday, 18 August 2007
War chest
 A recent article in the Daily Mail calls into question the accuracy of our Government’s unemployment statistics, claiming that the real figure is six times higher than the official one. However, the Government is standing by its statistics: Employment minister Caroline Flint yesterday claimed the official unemployment figures were 'very strong'. The so-called claimant count was 855,300, down by 8,500 from the previous month and the lowest total for over two years. Is she right? Well, how would I know? As a sub-intellectual, I am not qualified to form opinions on political matters. And if I were to get above myself and attempt to form an opinion, it would change along with my oestrogen-induced mood-swings. So naturally I must look to an intellectual – and a man – for my views. And who better than that formidable intellect Lawrence Auster? I’m sure Mr Auster, who likes to keep abreast of UK matters, knows a lot about vital statistics. So what does he think of Ms Flint’s figure? Let’s see (emphasis added): Cleavage in the Cabinet: another ridiculous female in government For anyone who thinks I'm wrongheaded and hateful to say that the increase in the number of females in leading government positions is a negative development for Western society, check out the Daily Mail's photo of Caroline Flint, Great Britain's Employment Minister. To an infinitely greater extent than men, women, especially contemporary women, are focused on their bodies and their looks and their vanity. In many cases (Condolezza Rice comes to mind) they make it all too clear that they don't take their jobs seriously, and that their jobs are a vehicle for the expression of their vanity; or, as in Flint's case, for the display of their breasts. Can you imagine a male cabinet officer going around in a shirt open to his mid-chest? The presence of women such as Caroline Flint in high office is an unfunny, nihilistic joke, a symbol of a civilization that doesn't respect itself and doesn't want to survive. So Flint went into politics to bare her Bristols? And never thought of Page Three of The Sun? My goodness. She must be topless. Let’s have a look, shall we? Those of a nervous disposition are advised to avert their gaze:
Shocking. Auster has seen the crack – in our civilisation. We are doomed and must be melted down through tremendous suffering. In the Good Old Days of Victorian values, before that monstrous regiment of bosoms – sorry, women – had the vote, our female leaders knew better:
Ooops. Perhaps not. Auster’s right. Even a little cleavage is a dangerous thing. Flint’s is nothing. As I noted in this post, Jacqui Smith and Hillary Clinton wield their war chests with gay abandon. Their political failings are unimportant, bounced out of the ring by their bazoomikas. Margaret Thatcher never showed any cleavage, nor did Golda Meir. But that’s not the point. They had it to show, and it could have popped out at any time, causing untold mayhem. Let’s be honest, mere possession of a bosom disqualifies a woman from participating in public life, even on a blog. Heavens, mine comes between my brain and my keyboard – how could I possibly type anything sensible? In the Daily Mail article linked above, there are many things about Caroline Flint that one could focus on: her attractive, lively, intelligent face, her smart jacket, and, last but not least, her words, which I believe are inaccurate. But Auster instead homes in on, dwells on, that small, barely perceptible display of cleavage. For some reason, probably hormonal, this little joke springs to mind: A shrink drew a circle on a piece of paper and then asked the patient. "What does this remind you of?" Posted on 08/18/2007 7:38 AM by Mary Jackson
Comments
18 Aug 2007
 Alex A.
That women such as Caroline Flint in high office is a symbol of our cultural decline seems merely ridiculous. But beyond the irony of your "sub-intellectual" response to Mr Auster, there remains the question: Is Caroline Flint any good at the job she's doing? Alex A. 18 Aug 2007
A Guess your vanity is still smarting from Auster's previous remarks if you're bothering to read his blog in search of things to make snarky comments about. Does she look like a person who should be taken seriously as a cabinet minister? No. She looks like an administrative assistant. 19 Aug 2007
mik
Are you scrambling for topics to write about? Do you need a drawn discussion of jackets and breasts and vanity? Auster looked at the photo and decided that Minister is the vain and empty skirt. You may disagree with his analysis, but was he wrong to describe the Minister as a vain nothing? Is she serious and competent goverment official? Why don't you prove that Auster is wrong about that woman. 19 Aug 2007
Undercover Black Man
Fun is fun, but be careful, Miss Jackson. Don't you know that Auster-baiting gives you spots? ;^) 19 Aug 2007
Mary Jackson Indeed. Now I've got to go and stand in the "naughty corner" with Derb and Jonah Goldberg. There are worse things. I wasn't just speaking of breasts, but of the plunging necklines by which women in public positions reveal their skin down to the middle of the chest. Whether or not there is cleavage is secondary. Women in public positions are showing too much of themselves, period. Mr Auster seems to have been observing these plunging necklines very closely. He could try looking at the face, or listening to the words. After all, unlike the weaker vessel, he is not at the mercy of his hormones. 19 Aug 2007
truepeers I don't know my Brit. politicians to remember the name; but the new minister responsible for the police or for insuring public safety was speaking in the House of Commons, on the occasion of the recent failed terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, showing rather more cleavage than in this photo. And those pics went global. She was trying to talk tough, but I thought she looked ill dressed to the part. She did not look in control or re-assuring because (rightly or wrongly) of her apparent concern with her (sexual) image. Women's breasts, like it or not, are designed by nature to attract sexual attention - in other words, and whatever the human and natural countervailing forces, this is nature's way of saying here's someone who needs or wants male (but thus also competitive female) attention; this natural reality further clashes with the paradox that cultural authority or sufficiency does not go out of its way to display its need of others, or unduly to cover it up. The less that needs to be said, the more evident your authority. I can imagine the Muslim world in large part laughing at this Minister. Women's and men's vanity does have political consequences, like it or not, rightly or wrongly. These should be open for discussion, just as should be Auster's vanity. Since the greatest vanity is pretending you have none, politics is usually the art of showing just enough and not too much. That amount, of course, must change with the times, precisely to politic with resentments caused by previously showing too much or too little. In other words, I tend to agree that women today too readily display their vanity. But t'is always so with sexual creatures who must mediate their desirability to others. Nature, and especially culture, like it or not, makes male vanity less useful. The more a man has to show it, pounding his chest, the more it is obvious he has a less than sufficient authority (or even sex appeal, at least to women). Politics eventually sees through the initial appeal of charisma; but I'm not sure that sex ever does, especially when it comes to women. There's a trap there for women politicians. 19 Aug 2007
j.utting the amount of cleavage in question is quite moderate,however i have noticed that on chat shows,soaps etc,necklines are plunging ever lower,and the owners miss no chance to lean forward and afford an even better view to the viewers.however,dont knock the knockers.in the dreary crap that is churned out nonstop ont v,wondering how long it will be before nipples are the norm is a pleasant diversion. john the infidel codger 20 Aug 2007
Big Bill You say: "Is she right? Well, how would I know? As a sub-intellectual, I am not qualified to form opinions on political matters", and "bazoomikas" and "Bristols", and "war chests". Really, sweetie, you need to chill. Sulking with a flip veneer of sarcasm is just plain unbecoming an adult woman. Beyond that, by repeating what Auster says and sniping in such a catty way, you do three things, all of which are bad for liberals. First, you draw attention to what Auster says, thereby providing him with new readers who DO think that dressing standards are dropping and women are looking more like hookers everyday. Auster's readers are dads who hate the spandex and belly-button shirts that liberated tweens wear in church--and we know it doesn't have to do with hating women of fearing breasts. As your mother and father doubtless told you, there is a time and a place for everything. And for us (although not for college freshmen and Daily Kos true believers) your sarcasm is ineffectual. Sarcasm only works where your audience is already on your side and will dismiss your opponent out of hand. Since we are not automatically disposed to reject Auster, your sarcastic responses are just painfully ad hominem and empty of all reason. You make his case by not providing any intelligent resistance. Remember, already-orthodox liberals are not your audience. Those of us sitting on the fence and open to rational persuasion are. Keep it rational and make your best case, calmly and straightforwardly. Reserve the sarcasm for hen parties where it will go much, much further. Second, by defending tittie flashing you sound more like a college freshman in her first women's studies class. As soon as you start sounding like Annie Sprinkle, you've really lost us. Third, by engaging in catty feminine sniping, you make his case, part of which is that women cannot resist engaging in traditional feminine modes of emotional combat Sweetie, rather than dig a deeper hole, do yourself a favor and just drop it. Go rational or don't respond at all. But don't rise to the Auster bait if you cannot hew to the issues. Either that or just fess up you are hanging with the wrong crowd (thereby proving Auster's point), link arms with UBM and return to the Democratic Party. No harm, no foul. Challenging (or defending) liberal orthodoxies on philosophical or scientific grounds isn't for everyone. Good luck! PS: the Amish and Orthodox Jews agree wholeheartedly with what Auster says. Are they neofascist women haters, too? Is the mechitza a symbol of hated patriarchy? Please speak up, Orthodox Jews around the nation want to know exactly where you stand. 20 Aug 2007
Mary Jackson Go rational or don't respond at all.� But don't rise to the Auster bait if you cannot hew to the issues. Was it a "bait"? I thought Auster was being serious, but if you claim he's a master baiter, who am I to disagree? Well, dearest, I would "go rational" and "hew to the issues" if I could work out what they were. If Auster had rationally taken issue with Flint's figures, rather than her figure, if he had�focused on her�unemployment statistics rather than her vital statistics, we could have had a debate. But Auster's argument seems to be: "Oooh,�look - titty." I'm all for rational thinking - hormones permitting. But there's not much to work with here.� 20 Aug 2007
A if you claim he's a master baiter, who am I to disagree? Oh my, that was painfully sophomoric. I don't think I've heard that one since 8th grade. That and your "bio" in the "authors" section has caused my estimate of your mental age to drop rather sharply... |
