The economy will tank because, as you will recall, Obama is still president. Ann Coulter
When I first meet someone, I use harsh language and dangerous opinions to weed out the wimps who aren’t worth my time, but I’m still using my own words and opinions. Gavin McInnes
Sorry, but I think it’s OK to be divisive if half the country is retarded. Gavin McInnes
Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Sunday, 29 January 2012
A review: With My Body by Nikki Gemmell
I realise that this review is not exactly topical. This book came out months ago but I only just read it as I refused to buy it and relied on a friend of a friend to send it to me, which they duly did. Thanks friends.
You were expecting to hate With My Body by Nikki Gemmell and you didn't, at least not straight away. It is an easy read, in as much as it moves along quickly.
The book is written in the 2nd person, a viewpoint that becomes an irritating affectation after about the second paragraph. (Ed: Should you stop? You think not.) It concerns "you", a 40ish mother of 3 boys in a comfortable but boring marriage. Despite not wanting sex, "you" is too tired, poor thing, she still craves the excitement of the affair that she had at 14 with an older man. Yes, that's right 14. The middle section of the book chronicles this series of rapes in explicit though somewhat repetitive detail. In fairly quick time you are shouting (in your head of course - there are children about) "Can't you think of another word to describe arousal besides wet?" (You won't look at water the same way again.)
The sex scenes are not particularly new. The author admits to being influenced by The Story of O, Pablo Neruda, and Anais Nin for instance. You were reminded of the movie Nine 1/2 weeks and even Sex and the City. The scenes are sometimes even clinical,
..the clit. Which has eight thousand nerve endings. Can you believe it? Twice as many as the boring old penis
You begin to wonder if perhaps this an episode of QI.
The sex scenes get raunchier and raunchier culminating in a blindfolded group sex scene with strangers. Despite this abundance of sex, the protagonist is not enthused when it comes to fellatio. Perhaps this is a ploy by the author to show that although her character is being raped it is consensual rape. Perhaps it is just a prejudice of the author. Whatever, it is a jarring note in this part of the book.
This part ends with the inevitable break-up, not a plot spoiler since "you" is not married to her former lover at the beginning of the book. Flashback over, 40 year old "You" decides she needs a holiday back to the scene of the crimes, so to speak. On this holiday she has a revelation that sheds light on the break-up and then she returns home to work on a happy ending. Yay.
All the characters are caricatures, even "you". Granted "you" is two caricatures, 40ish bored housewife looking for meaning in her life and 14 year old sexpot. How "you" developed from 14 to 40 is glossed over in the literary equivalent of a montage. Hubby is a snag, well meaning, dependable, long suffering (the man went for two years without sex with barely a whimper) and boring. The children are
"the serious one", "the naughty one"and "the baby one". You's dad is a silent, distant working-class man. Step-mum is an unambitious, controlling bitch with no self esteem. First sexual experience is with a woman hater, the second with the fantasy older man whose only problem with taking a 14 year old on magical sexual tour is being caught; otherwise he is artistic and sensitive, (you make gagging noises).
While several interesting issues are touched upon nothing is dealt with in depth.
"You" is sure that her marriage will last while you watching from the outside are pretty sure it would be doomed and will end when the kids have grown up if not before. Already they have nothing in common and barely communicate. A crisis brings them together, but really for how long?
The fourteen year old conducts a raging affair over the summer holidays and no-one in the rest of her life; Dad, Step-mum, even realises that she's barely at home. There's not even a quizzical look. During said affair, while there is excruciating detail about the acts themselves the only concern in the aftermath is in not getting caught. No hickeys in obvious areas; no bruised mouths. There is no mention of other bruising or chafing, the fact that after sex that included a chain there may have been some trouble walking, let alone riding a bicycle the several kilometres back home. Yet not even the vindictive Step-mum notices even enough to suspect that "Your daughter is running wild!" even though she's read and been disgusted by the girl's diary.
The girl herself is only concerned as to whether her lover loves her and if she can trust him. She is not worried about pregnancy or diseases or (you only mention this because she goes to a convent school) sin. Mundane things like periods have no place in this book. Perhaps these considerations will take away from the "romance".
When 40ish "you" returns from her holiday away from her husband and wants sex, he is merely grateful, not suspicious or even curious.
The ex-lover is not met in the adult life probably because he cannot be a sympathetic character if met in real life and outside of a fantasy. If sympathetic, "you" would then have to choose between boring husband and exciting ex. If not, the issue of rape, barely alluded to in the book would need further exploration. Ms Gemmell takes the easy way out.
As vehicle for female porn, this book is a reasonable attempt but you suspect that Ms Gemmell was hoping for art. If so, then she has failed.
You were expecting to hate With My Body by Nikki Gemmell and you didn't, at least not straight away. It is an easy read, in as much as it moves along quickly.
The book is written in the 2nd person, a viewpoint that becomes an irritating affectation after about the second paragraph. (Ed: Should you stop? You think not.) It concerns "you", a 40ish mother of 3 boys in a comfortable but boring marriage. Despite not wanting sex, "you" is too tired, poor thing, she still craves the excitement of the affair that she had at 14 with an older man. Yes, that's right 14. The middle section of the book chronicles this series of rapes in explicit though somewhat repetitive detail. In fairly quick time you are shouting (in your head of course - there are children about) "Can't you think of another word to describe arousal besides wet?" (You won't look at water the same way again.)
The sex scenes are not particularly new. The author admits to being influenced by The Story of O, Pablo Neruda, and Anais Nin for instance. You were reminded of the movie Nine 1/2 weeks and even Sex and the City. The scenes are sometimes even clinical,
..the clit. Which has eight thousand nerve endings. Can you believe it? Twice as many as the boring old penis
You begin to wonder if perhaps this an episode of QI.
The sex scenes get raunchier and raunchier culminating in a blindfolded group sex scene with strangers. Despite this abundance of sex, the protagonist is not enthused when it comes to fellatio. Perhaps this is a ploy by the author to show that although her character is being raped it is consensual rape. Perhaps it is just a prejudice of the author. Whatever, it is a jarring note in this part of the book.
This part ends with the inevitable break-up, not a plot spoiler since "you" is not married to her former lover at the beginning of the book. Flashback over, 40 year old "You" decides she needs a holiday back to the scene of the crimes, so to speak. On this holiday she has a revelation that sheds light on the break-up and then she returns home to work on a happy ending. Yay.
All the characters are caricatures, even "you". Granted "you" is two caricatures, 40ish bored housewife looking for meaning in her life and 14 year old sexpot. How "you" developed from 14 to 40 is glossed over in the literary equivalent of a montage. Hubby is a snag, well meaning, dependable, long suffering (the man went for two years without sex with barely a whimper) and boring. The children are
"the serious one", "the naughty one"and "the baby one". You's dad is a silent, distant working-class man. Step-mum is an unambitious, controlling bitch with no self esteem. First sexual experience is with a woman hater, the second with the fantasy older man whose only problem with taking a 14 year old on magical sexual tour is being caught; otherwise he is artistic and sensitive, (you make gagging noises).
While several interesting issues are touched upon nothing is dealt with in depth.
"You" is sure that her marriage will last while you watching from the outside are pretty sure it would be doomed and will end when the kids have grown up if not before. Already they have nothing in common and barely communicate. A crisis brings them together, but really for how long?
The fourteen year old conducts a raging affair over the summer holidays and no-one in the rest of her life; Dad, Step-mum, even realises that she's barely at home. There's not even a quizzical look. During said affair, while there is excruciating detail about the acts themselves the only concern in the aftermath is in not getting caught. No hickeys in obvious areas; no bruised mouths. There is no mention of other bruising or chafing, the fact that after sex that included a chain there may have been some trouble walking, let alone riding a bicycle the several kilometres back home. Yet not even the vindictive Step-mum notices even enough to suspect that "Your daughter is running wild!" even though she's read and been disgusted by the girl's diary.
The girl herself is only concerned as to whether her lover loves her and if she can trust him. She is not worried about pregnancy or diseases or (you only mention this because she goes to a convent school) sin. Mundane things like periods have no place in this book. Perhaps these considerations will take away from the "romance".
When 40ish "you" returns from her holiday away from her husband and wants sex, he is merely grateful, not suspicious or even curious.
The ex-lover is not met in the adult life probably because he cannot be a sympathetic character if met in real life and outside of a fantasy. If sympathetic, "you" would then have to choose between boring husband and exciting ex. If not, the issue of rape, barely alluded to in the book would need further exploration. Ms Gemmell takes the easy way out.
As vehicle for female porn, this book is a reasonable attempt but you suspect that Ms Gemmell was hoping for art. If so, then she has failed.
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Tony Abbott's fault
It is apparently Tony Abbott's fault that Julia Gillard has withdrawn support for Andrew Wilkie's pokie bill, because
"The numbers are not there," Senator Conroy said in Melbourne.
"What's really rich is Tony Abbott, a man who could deliver the numbers, stopping a promise being delivered.
Sorry Senator Conroy, what's really rich is expecting the opposition to prop up an incompetent government and to vote for a bill that even your own side don't like.
Unlike Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott does not owe Andrew Wilkie anything.
"The numbers are not there," Senator Conroy said in Melbourne.
"What's really rich is Tony Abbott, a man who could deliver the numbers, stopping a promise being delivered.
Sorry Senator Conroy, what's really rich is expecting the opposition to prop up an incompetent government and to vote for a bill that even your own side don't like.
Unlike Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott does not owe Andrew Wilkie anything.
Friday, 20 January 2012
The Fighting Feminazis
It's always amusing to watch the feminists going hammer and tongs and Jessica Rudd's piece in Australian Vogue is a typical example. Since Naomi Wolf wrote the Beauty Myth the old guard have been looking at young women and found them wanting. While the younger feminists wail back, "You don't understand us."
Of course the old feminists understand only too well. They understand that they have failed. Western women are exactly where they would be if there had been no feminist movement.
Ms Rudd is thankful that she doesn't have to put up with
the grubby office come-ons daily on Mad Men
but are the grubby office come-ons worse than the abuse doled out by Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It. Progress. Both Mad Men and The Thick of It are fiction, in the real world the come-ons still continue, though maybe less grubbily to avoid being sued.
In the real world women would have made the inroads that they have made without feminism. Labour saving inventions have meant that "men's" work no longer needs the strength of men. Most jobs are white collar and can be done equally well by women. Women were already being educated, hence all those women already in university starting up the women's movement. Women were entering the workforce because they needed to. Women have always worked outside the home. Only women of a certain class have had the luxury of not needing paid employment. That is still true today. All feminism did was make these women feel guilty for taking this option.
The other innovation that freed women was the pill. The pill was not a feminist invention. It did however put women in charge of their reproductive capabilities. They could choose, to a greater degree when and if they would have children. Those old feminists must be shaking their heads in horror at the number of teenagers choosing to be unmarried mums. Progress.
These things pushed women into the workplace and sheer numbers would have pushed them up the ladder anyway. There was no need for feminism and the fact that young successful women who have had all the so called feminist advantages still choose to dress sexily rather that comfortably, to get married and look after their children rather than climb the corporate ladder shows that the paradigm that feminism was trying to dismantle still exists and therefore those old feminists failed. No wonder they're disappointed.
By way of disclosure, I am disqualified from being a feminist on the grounds of my conservatism. This makes me a dispassionate observer.
Of course the old feminists understand only too well. They understand that they have failed. Western women are exactly where they would be if there had been no feminist movement.
Ms Rudd is thankful that she doesn't have to put up with
the grubby office come-ons daily on Mad Men
but are the grubby office come-ons worse than the abuse doled out by Malcolm Tucker from The Thick of It. Progress. Both Mad Men and The Thick of It are fiction, in the real world the come-ons still continue, though maybe less grubbily to avoid being sued.
In the real world women would have made the inroads that they have made without feminism. Labour saving inventions have meant that "men's" work no longer needs the strength of men. Most jobs are white collar and can be done equally well by women. Women were already being educated, hence all those women already in university starting up the women's movement. Women were entering the workforce because they needed to. Women have always worked outside the home. Only women of a certain class have had the luxury of not needing paid employment. That is still true today. All feminism did was make these women feel guilty for taking this option.
The other innovation that freed women was the pill. The pill was not a feminist invention. It did however put women in charge of their reproductive capabilities. They could choose, to a greater degree when and if they would have children. Those old feminists must be shaking their heads in horror at the number of teenagers choosing to be unmarried mums. Progress.
These things pushed women into the workplace and sheer numbers would have pushed them up the ladder anyway. There was no need for feminism and the fact that young successful women who have had all the so called feminist advantages still choose to dress sexily rather that comfortably, to get married and look after their children rather than climb the corporate ladder shows that the paradigm that feminism was trying to dismantle still exists and therefore those old feminists failed. No wonder they're disappointed.
By way of disclosure, I am disqualified from being a feminist on the grounds of my conservatism. This makes me a dispassionate observer.
Friday, 13 January 2012
Tweet away, Doctor.
The Media's favourite tweeting politician Dr Peter Phelps MLC was in The Age yesterday with a story called a "Year in Tweets." A somewhat ironic title considering the Doctor only began tweeting at the end of November 2011. The article left out Dr Phelps' most famous tweet perhaps because he has vowed not to swear on twitter anymore. It also left out my favourite tweet so far:
At Birchgrove Satanists for the Solstice Celebration. Carols, mead, nude dancing and goat decapitation. Who says constituent work is dull?! Dec 12, 2011.
At Birchgrove Satanists for the Solstice Celebration. Carols, mead, nude dancing and goat decapitation. Who says constituent work is dull?! Dec 12, 2011.
Bravo Federal Court Judge Alan Robertson.
A 75 year old disabled woman lost her case against Jetstar for refusing to allow her on a flight in 2008.
Ms Sheila King who suffers from post polio syndrome and further injuries from a car accident in 2008 failed to let the airline know that she was confined to a wheelchair when she booked her flight and found that when she rang to confirm her flight that the airline's two wheelchair assistance seats were already taken. She was offered a seat on another flight which she refused. Instead, she decided to sue Jetstar claiming that she had been discriminated against.
This is what Graeme Innes acting on Ms King's behalf, had to say on the ABC's Lateline on the 31st October 2011:
GRAEME INNES, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION COMMISSIONER: This problem seems to relate to budget airlines. Qantas certainly doesn't have a policy excluding people - more than two people who use wheelchairs on their aircraft and never has had. And I don't know any other airline in the world that does.
Well Graeme, I'll say this real slow so perhaps even you can understand. Budget airlines offer cheap prices to customers by keeping costs low. Wheelchair assistance seats cost money, they require extra staff, extra space and often special meal requirements. Limiting the available spaces limits costs. Jetstar were no more discriminating against your client than they would be against me when they did not provide me with a 1st class seat if I'd asked for it. They don't have any 1st class seats. They're a budget airline.
In response to this loss, Joanna Shulman from the Redfern Legal Centre wants the government to strengthen the laws regarding the rights of people with disabilities, so that future Ms Kings will win a case like this. Ms Shulman fails to mention what this sort of reform would cost. At the very least it would put up the cost of a ticket on Jetstar (putting air travel out of the reach of some people) not that Ms Shulman would care she probably doesn't fly Jetstar anyway.
Ms Sheila King who suffers from post polio syndrome and further injuries from a car accident in 2008 failed to let the airline know that she was confined to a wheelchair when she booked her flight and found that when she rang to confirm her flight that the airline's two wheelchair assistance seats were already taken. She was offered a seat on another flight which she refused. Instead, she decided to sue Jetstar claiming that she had been discriminated against.
This is what Graeme Innes acting on Ms King's behalf, had to say on the ABC's Lateline on the 31st October 2011:
GRAEME INNES, DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION COMMISSIONER: This problem seems to relate to budget airlines. Qantas certainly doesn't have a policy excluding people - more than two people who use wheelchairs on their aircraft and never has had. And I don't know any other airline in the world that does.
Well Graeme, I'll say this real slow so perhaps even you can understand. Budget airlines offer cheap prices to customers by keeping costs low. Wheelchair assistance seats cost money, they require extra staff, extra space and often special meal requirements. Limiting the available spaces limits costs. Jetstar were no more discriminating against your client than they would be against me when they did not provide me with a 1st class seat if I'd asked for it. They don't have any 1st class seats. They're a budget airline.
In response to this loss, Joanna Shulman from the Redfern Legal Centre wants the government to strengthen the laws regarding the rights of people with disabilities, so that future Ms Kings will win a case like this. Ms Shulman fails to mention what this sort of reform would cost. At the very least it would put up the cost of a ticket on Jetstar (putting air travel out of the reach of some people) not that Ms Shulman would care she probably doesn't fly Jetstar anyway.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Include me out
Jack the Insider lament the existence of the Department of Social Inclusion. A Department
devoted to something it does not understand, cannot define and cannot begin to implement meaningful policy besides knocking out a few colourful brochures that include the usual plethora of meaningless buzz words and smiling ethnologically correct faces.
Fair enough. If the coalition is looking to save a couple of bucks, here's a likely candidate.
This gobbledy-gook is business as usual for all governments that want to be seen to be doing something about a perceived problem. Trouble is they're not doing anything but wasting our money.
via Tim Blair
devoted to something it does not understand, cannot define and cannot begin to implement meaningful policy besides knocking out a few colourful brochures that include the usual plethora of meaningless buzz words and smiling ethnologically correct faces.
Fair enough. If the coalition is looking to save a couple of bucks, here's a likely candidate.
This gobbledy-gook is business as usual for all governments that want to be seen to be doing something about a perceived problem. Trouble is they're not doing anything but wasting our money.
via Tim Blair
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Touching Up Deborah Hutton
There are parts of my body I don't like. There are bulges, and cellulite (thankfully I was sitting on that)
So, for the record, let me also tell you that I wore make-up, got a heavy spray tan the day before the shoot and had my hair professionally styled
More recent photos of Deborah, while still stunning suggest that she had been on a bit of a diet prior to the Weekly's photo shoot or the touching up was a little more extensive than she's admitting. Who can blame her? I wouldn't want the world or even just Australia to see me warts and all either.
Trouble is both she and the Weekly were suggesting that they were promoting positive self body image while using an image that wasn't real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)