HUMOROUS ARTICLES

SCOTT TREVOR

proves he holds nothing against feminine assets!

JOHN BERGER, in his classic work "Ways of Seeing", makes out an excellent case for society regarding men as the 'lookers' and women as the being looked at 1. I doubt that many people would need to read the book to come to the same conclusion. All around us we see positive proof of its truth. This is the gist of what Berger says in chapter three of his book:

'A woman's presence expresses her own attitude to herself. Her presence is manifest in her gestures, voice, opinions, expressions, clothes, chosen surroundings, taste etc.

'To be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men. The social presence of women has developed as a result of their ingenuity in living under such tutelage within such a limited space. But this has been at the cost of a woman's self being split into two. A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself.

'She has to survey everything she is and everything she does because how she appears to others, and ultimately how she appears to men, is of crucial importance for what is normally thought of as the success of her life.

'Men survey women before treating them. Consequently how a woman appears to a man can determine how she will be treated. To acquire some control over this process, women must contain it and interiorise it. That part of a woman's self which is the surveyor treats the part which is the surveyed so as to demonstrate to others how her whole self would like to be treatedSù Every one of her actions &endash; whatever its direct purpose or motivation &endash; is also read as an indication of how she would like to be treated.

'One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves. One only has to watch the opening credits of Baywatch to notice that the girls are portrayed as looking, in sultry fashion, at the viewer, whereas the men are portrayed as doing something.

The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object, and most particularly an object of vision: a sight.'

 

The fact that women spend three times as much as men on their clothes and have three times as many clothes shops to visit as men have also lends considerable support to this idea.

Despite the fact that a few media people (probably in receipt of 'backhanders' from the cosmetics industry) try hard to convince us that men are now into make-up, if you ever come across the rare sight of a man wearing any you can be certain he'll be getting some rather queer looks from both men and women.

I remember the late Princess Di, some years ago, going on holiday with a few women friends and without Prince Charles, commenting in the press that it was such a nice holiday because as there were no men present she did not have to wear make-up or dress smartly.

A few months ago, George McCaulay was taking part in a panel phone-in programme on radio. A staunch feminist who was also on the panel was at pains to explain that women only dress to please themselves, not to please men. This is, of course, just a regular part of the feminist philosophy (and equally as flawed as the rest!) but most women fail to go along with it. The late Andrea Dworkin was one who did, but how many normal women want to look that repulsive either to other women or to men? To see a picture of her, in a hilarious article on the Suffragents site, click on the following URL (you will see the title at the top of the page, or scroll down): http://suffragents.freehostia.com/articles%20file/feminism.html

On many occasions when I have called to see a woman friend in her home, unannounced, the first thing she has done is to apologise for her appearance; not that it worried me at all, but if she dressed to please herself, why wasn't she dressed smartly at home? It wasn't as though she had been cooking or cleaning.

If any of our women readers are tempted to mutter 'chauvinist!' with regard to the comments of John Berger, let's turn to a couple of rabid feminists and see what they have to say on the matter.

In Mark Harrington's review of the book 'Heterosexuality a Feminism and Psychology Reader' in the Male View magazine of April/June 1994 he quotes the words of two joint authors, Rosalind Gill and Rebecca Walker: 

'Being feminist does not mean that we are immune from wanting to feel attractive and needing to be told this by partners. To live with a man who believes that to say anything about our appearance would be sexist is to live feeling afraid and unconfident and to hunger for someone to tell us that we are attractive to them.1

I think the use of the word 'hunger' there puts these writers absolutely in line with the sentiments of John Berger.

Plastic surgery and anorexia are the horrific manifestations of this 'being looked at' picture but perhaps you will excuse me from going into the details of what many thousands of women suffer in the pursuit of 'looking good'. If you've seen some of those liposuction and implant operations on TV, you'll know exactly what I mean.

But let's look at a few very sensible comments on women's bodies and dress which have appeared in the press. Minette Marrin, writing in the 'Sunday Telegraph' said:

'There was a great deal of fuss last week about the Princess of Wales's bosom, and when to expose it. But it seems to me that this is one of the few things in life that are entirely simple. We are what we wear, or to be more precise, other people are entitled to think we are what we wear, because we choose our clothes and orchestrate our appearance. And our clothes give out clear messages, which is why we devote so much attention to them.

'I have no idea of what the Princess of Wales wants to convey. But if you wear clothes with a message intended only for a private occasion - such as a bosomy dress - it is a mistake to give out the same signal in public. I let my young daughter dress up like jail-bait for private parties, but never in public. On the street or on public transport, she and her friends have to cover up their crop tops and their micro-skirts completely; otherwise they will be clearly inviting the sexual interest of strangers. It is absolutely frivolous to think otherwise.'

Obviously a lady who is ratifying the sentiments of John Berger!

Another Telegraph writer, Hugo Gurdon, had this to say on the matter:

'One did not have to turn to the tabloid papers this week to find bosoms jutting eyeward for attention. Even in broadsheet havens of piety, they accompanied debate sparked by a prosecutor who said, sensibly, that women cannot object if they are photographed in public. When was the last time you sought permission to snap an interesting sight? A woman wearing clothes designed to attract attention can hardly complain if she. . . well . . . attracts attention. Result: an avalanche of cant.

'Glenda Jackson is reported approvingly, saying: "A woman has the right to wear whatever she likes. The idea that clothes mean she has abdicated her rights to protection is absurd." It would be, but there is no such suggestion. The point is that sexy clothes don't confer a portable right of privacy which women carry with them on the street. In any case women want their décollage admired and men are happy to oblige. Summer brings forth cleavages not because that's the only way to keep cool but because warm weather facilitates the desire, shared by many women, to show more.

'Revealed flesh adds buoyancy to the sunshine. A plunging neckline is a window through which we are invited to gaze.

'Designers seek to create sexy designs, fashion editors deem them sexy, and women buy them to be sexy - that is, to attract sexual attention. Women are cantilevered and men are delighted. How many people voted for Glenda Jackson? A measly 19,193. How many women voted for Wonderbras? Millions. Why? because they becko - 3Hello Boys2 in wire and lace. Imagine: a woman projects her breasts into the world, and men ignore her? No. We give her her due. We admire. We ogle. Else she may fairly demand: "What's a girl got to do around here to get a little attention?"'

And our last quote comes from a gentleman who has seen much of life at all levels and speaks with much common sense and a sense of humour. His Honour Judge James Pickles in his book "Judge for Yourself" says:

'I was walking along a London street behind two young men when a bra-less young woman came bobbling and bouncing towards us. As they passed her, both men did an eyes-right and there was a look of smug satisfaction on the young woman's face. Was that her object, or was she bra-less for sartorial comfort? Both, probably. I do not condemn bra-less females; they add to life's enjoyment. Female attire is based on sexual attractiveness. It is part of the sex game that runs through all life. Without it there would be no life. With it, life is continuously uplifting . . .

'I have never said that a bra-less woman deserves to be raped. But by her dress and manner she may in some situations give or appear to give signals that are open to misinterpretation. If she seems to want sex but does not, a man who tries to grab it from her cannot be excused - but she must share the blame.

One woman told me she hated Page Three as she had had a mastectomy. This is the key to female condemnation of nude photographs. Those girls have better, more exciting breasts than theirs, and so should be covered up or their depiction even banned by law. Their men may see them and compare. Women are reminded of their own inadequacies in the eyes of men as they daily catch sight of the pin-ups and feel insecure.'

In issue three of Male View magazine, back in 1993, I wrote a piece entitled 'Why Are Women Losing Their Femininity?' In three short years, as feminism has waned, how things have changed! Now, it seems to be the aim of many young women and girls to wear as little as possible from the waist up, and, quite often, from the waist down too. I have frequently seen bare midriffs on show when I have been dressed in an overcoat. How they must suffer in their efforts to attract! They really must really ache for the attention of men.

Over the same period I have also noticed a similar abandonment of the cover-up in the Australian soaps on TV. Whether it is an attempt to revive their flagging ratings, I don't know, but whereas in the early nineties a character in Neighbours declared it 'disgusting' to photograph a girl in a bikini to advertise a hotel, now they are often seen both at home and in public sporting some very brief bikinis, some very skimpy nightwear and dresses brief to the point of being offhand!

Another very noticeable trend during this time has been the ever increasing number of advertisements for women's sexy lingerie. Such advertisements have always appeared in the tabloids but now they are also appearing regularly and in large numbers in the quality press. Advertisers only advertise regularly when their products sell regularly.

'The Sun' Page Three girls some years ago celebrated their twenty-fifth anniversary which seems to indicate that there is a never ending stream of young babes willing to bare their assets for the lads (in the very best of taste of course). And what The Sun started, has been increasingly followed by the other tabloids. As one of my young male colleagues recently commented: 'We don't take it seriously. It1s just a bit of a laugh for the boys!'

And today, on the internet, there are hundreds of thousands of young women - and quite a few optimistic older ones - from all nations baring everything, even to the extent of shaving their pubic hair and posing in very revealing poses, in order to attract the male gaze. It was ever thus, and, despite the efforts of feminists to arrange it otherwise, it will long continue.

top

How to Train a Woman to Care - for the Car You always thought this an impossible task? So did we until we read these useful guidelines by STEVE WRIGHT

LAVATORY seat up or down? A deep-seated cause for nagging. According to our ladies we men leave the seat in the most convenient position for us. They, of course, leave it in the right position - that is for their convenience (ouch!). Yet, if you look into it (after flushing) I bet your lavatory has a seat and a cover, giving three positions: both up, both down, and one up with one down. The chances are that your wife doesn't put the cover down, but that you don't nag her because of it.

Nagging seems to involve a sex-linked hereditary factor, being handed down from mother to daughter. But there is also a learning factor when the daughter sees the power wielded by the nagger. Father and brother are broken down by unrelenting words. An initial reluctance to even respond in kind to some perhaps quite trivial matter generates a defeat. Anything out of (mum's) routine is ground out of existence. Any independent action (male, naturally) is ruthlessly talked down. No wonder so many teen-age boys feel so guilty and commit suicide.

Do men nag? I know of cases where unreasonable behaviour was tolerated for just so long and then the male victim sought the most sympathetic and sensitive way to broach the subject for the first time whereupon he was immediately accused of nagging. Presumably, women don't want one of their most effective weapons in the hands (or mouths, rather) of men. I don't personally know of any man who is a nagger, but I know of precious few women who aren't.

Am I unfair? I have never heard of any research on the subject, which, in view of its importance in moulding us, is surprising. Any suggestions for some real research before female sociologists get their (false) teeth into the subject?

REVENGE OF THE COLD SEAT!

A certain married man who got thoroughly fed up with his wife's constant nagging about leaving the toilet seat up decided that he must put an end to it once and for all. He waited until the really cold weather arrived and then completely removed both the seat and the cover. He hid them under the spare tyre in his car boot. Despite his wife's protestations and pleas he did not return them for a whole month. As he remarked to a friend, 'If I told her where they were, she wouldn't know how to get at them and she certainly would not be able to re-fit them.'

When he did eventually relent, the nagging stopped abruptly.

top

THE phone rings. You answer it and find it's your colleague, Rita, who is ringing to confirm arrangements for the firm's annual medical conference.

'Thanks for ringing, Rita. How did the accommodation arrangements go?'

'Fine, Mark. Just fine. I can manage to put up Dr Prescott and Sam at my place and my next door neighbour can accommodate the midwife.'

'Great stuff, Rita. I hope it all works out well.'

'Oh, I'm sure it will. Mind you, it's a bit of a push, but my family are willing to squeeze up a bit and the other Doctor, Michael Graves, is quite willing to share his room with Dr Prescott . . .'

'What?' I don't think that's such a good idea. Her husband might not approve.'

'Oh. heck, Mark! She's a woman? Oh, well, perhaps my other next door neighbour will help out. Anyway, I've arranged for her son, Sam, to share a bunk bed with my son, John.'

'Hold it again, Rita. We have another problem. Sam's a girl.'

'Oh, sh.. blow! That means I'll have to be extra nice to my sister across the road.

'Sorry you've been messed about, Rita, but you say everything is OK for the midwife?'

'Oh, no difficulty there, I've booked her in with Miss Strangeways, next door.'

'But, Rita . . . sorry about this . . . the midwife's a man.'

'A man! How the hell can a midwife be a man? Surely he should at least be a midhusband! Look here, Mark, this is the last time I take this job on.'

This little scenario gives a brief glimpse of the parlous state of our English language at the present time.

We all know that standards are falling in our schools, so much so that some of them have had to be closed down, while others have had a team of experts imported to try to improve things. But nowhere are standards falling quite so badly as in the study of English. Don't take my word for this; just read a few newspapers and magazines from any newstand you come across, or view a few hours of TV fare, and listen to the ersatz English being thrown out.

My main complaint is that today's English is so sloppy and negative. That incisive quality of written English by men like Shakespeare, Milton and Dickens is, with few exceptions, almost totally lost today. Those writers created sharp, memorable pictures with their words; they left us in no doubt as to what they meant. One line from John Milton's Samson Agonistes comes to mind

Eyeless, in Gaza, at the mill, with slaves.

What consummate skill to be able to draw such a vivid picture in just eight words. We are left in no doubt whatsoever as to Milton's meaning; we hear what he means; we see what he means.

Now please don't think that I am advocating some sort of stuffy, pedantic English which must strictly conform in grammar and syntax to rules set in concrete which, like the law of the Medes and Persians, 'altereth not'.

I believe that a certain amount of elasticity in the application of grammatical rules is often a good thing and can add to a verbal picture. I suppose many of us were told in school that we should not end a sentence with a preposition. This is a good rule of thumb, but I am reminded of the words of Sir Winston Churchill concerning this: 'It is the sort of English up with which we will not put.' Touché!

The split infinitive is also a matter of contention but it can be 'used to, very often, add emphasis'.

No, what I am appealing for is positive English in the area mainly of vocabulary, which is in such a parlous state at the present time that it just about matches our national sense of dress: sloppy and meaningless!

One group which has been busy insidiously churning out meaningless English over the last decade is the politically 'correct' lobby, aided and abetted by editors, scriptwriters and presenters who, as alleged professionals, should know better.

Indeed, some words have become so flaccid in their meanings that they can be used anyhow because they mean nothing. One word which falls into this category and which is constantly being thrown around on TV these days is the word 'guy'. In the UK this refers to a man, the musical Guys and Dolls (happily now enjoying a revival) is witness to this.

However, in the USA and Australia I have recently heard it applied to both males and females. Now, let us suppose that in these two countries the word really does apply to both. Then why does one female character in a certain Australian 'soap', when talking to another woman, come out with the line: 'The things we do for guys!' Was she talking about men or women? Did she mean, 'The things we do for men!' or 'The things we do for women!'? Or both?

On another occasion, the same character says, 'You can tell guys have been living in this house!' What guys? Why doesn't she say what she is thinking? You see what I mean by sloppy and meaningless English?

In a Michael Palin programme on TV he met a Japanese lady and we were introduced to her at some length. She showed him around town, and when she left (rather abruptly it seemed) he said that he had taken leave of 'his host'. Now unless she was some sort of oriental Danny la Rue, a host is the one thing she just could not have been. Sloppy, negative English, Mr Palin! Was it this sort of English which made the lady leave so abruptly? It can cause problems.

And can anyone tell me why actresses sometimes refer to themselves as 'actors'? I have never known one of them receive an Oscar for the best actor. Why use a word which, quite clearly, does not apply and which can be misleading?

There are other examples where two or three words have to be used simply because the speaker of writer does not use the one positive word which should be used; such things as 'lady director' instead of 'directrix', 'lady patron' instead of 'patroness' and so on.

Let's be positive, let's define: not 'cabin crew member' (there's no picture here) but 'air host' or 'air hostess'. We then get the picture.

There are some areas where words which have sufficed in the past no longer do so, and call for either new vocabulary or for the use of words which have fallen into disuse e.g. 'doctress' defined in the O.E.D. as 'a female doctor'. Why on earth don't we use it instead of the silly 'lady doctor'? We don't even know whether she is a lady!

Male and female nurses can be something of a minefield. How about 'nurse' and 'nur' rather along the lines of 'masseur' and 'masseuse'?

In the Church the use of 'priestess' should be mandatory. Quite a number of people now carry with them cards asking that when they die they should be attended by a male priest. It isn't right to confuse the dying!

Another common area of sloppiness one comes across these days is in the non-agreement of nouns, verbs and adjectives. Did we not have this drummed into us in school? It's important. Let's do it. A common failing today is to say something like 'Each scholar must take their books with them.' Wrong! Each, their and them do not agree. The customary default is to use the masculine: Each scholar must take his books with him. Don't worry about using the word 'him’. You are merely conforming with the UK's Interpretation Act of 1978 which clearly states that the masculine includes the feminine unless a contrary intention is shown. A woman cannot think she is excused from any law if it obviously applies to everyone.

One of the unfortunate buzz terms today is 'gender studies'. One of the greatest experts on the English language this country has ever known was H.W.Fowler, whose book Modern English Usage was so well received by English scholars, the world over, that it had to be reprinted four times in its first year of publication.

In that book he has this to say:

'GENDER: is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine gender meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder'
How many blunders are being committed today in our universities and other places of education?

May I, in support of my plea, quote further from H.W.Fowler's book where he is speaking of feminists who dare to put their ideas before the interests of the English language:

 

'These ladies neither are nor pretend to be making their objection in the interests of the language or of people in general; they object in their own interests only; this they are entitled to do, but still it is lower ground, and general convenience and the needs of the King's English, if these are against them, must be reckoned of more importance than their sectional claims . . .

'. . . with the coming extension of women's vocations, feminines for vocation-words are a special need of the future; everyone knows the inconvenience of being uncertain whether a doctor is a man or a woman .. .

' . . . Far from needing to reduce the number of our sex-words, we should do well to indulge in real neologisms such as teacheress, singeress and danceress ...'

It may perhaps aid consideration of the subject if short selections are given A, of established feminine titles, B, of recent ones, and C, of words unfortunately not provided with feminines.

 

A

Abbess, actress, administratrix, adultress, adventuress, ambassadress, deaconess, duchess, enchantress, executrix, giantess, goddess, governess, horsewoman, hostess, huntress, Jewess, lioness, murderess, priestess, princess, procuress, prophetess, quakeress, queen, shepherdess, songstress, soceress, stewardess, votaress, waitress, wardress.

 

B

Authoress, chairwoman, conductress, draughtswoman, editress, inspectress, jury-woman, manageress, paintress, patroness, poetess, policewoman, protectress, tailoress.

 

C

Artist, aurist, clerk, cook, councillor, cyclist, lecturer etc. . . .'

'Milton, thou shouldst be living at this hour!' Yes, indeed. So, in memory of the bard and other men of his ilk who have provided us with such a wonderful legacy of English literature, I make my plea for positive English.

Let's launch this positive English campaign and adopt an attitude of zero tolerance towards sloppy, negative English. Let's get rid of it, root and branch, and let's start now.

When you go to work tomorrow, talk about it with your colleagues. Let it casually drop that you are a member of PEG, the Positive English Group, so that, should anyone ask whether you would be prepared to serve as 'Chair' of the works social committee, you can reply, 'Sorry, I couldn't possibly be elected to any such meaningless post. PEG would not allow me to use a negative word such as 'chair'.

And remember: you are positive; they are negative. You've already grabbed the high moral ground. Go on from there!

Look around for examples of negative, sloppy English. Send them in and we'll publish a few.

top

BECAUSE the percentage increase of women going to prison has far outstripped the percentage of men, it looks as though, very early in the twenty-first century there will be as many women in prison as men, possibly more.

But we should not have to wait that long. After all, with equality of the sexes being today's watchword, and the Labour Party quite willing to use illegal slit lists to get more women into Parliament, perhaps we could take a leaf out of their book to hurry the time when our prison population will consist of men and women in equal numbers. Like the Labour Party, let us not shrink at adopting illegal methods. I suggest a policy along the following lines:

Police and judiciary must shed their thick blue line approach whereby they are always prepared to believe what any woman tells them, even when they have track records as inveterate liars. They must be taught by compulsory attendance at equality seminars to deliberately target women offenders and, whereas, at the present time when men receive 30% longer prison sentences than women who commit the same crimes, in future this process must be reversed.

Could we make some of the more irksome qualities of women (of which there are a large number!) into full blown crimes? e.g. nagging. Sadly, the ducking stool for nagging wives went out years ago. Perhaps we could replace it with long prison sentences. Just think of some jolly jingles to promote this step: 'Nagging out! Prison in!' or 'A man's no, means no'. etc.

And gossipping! Now here's a great opportunity not to be missed. With hidden microphones in the workplace and a minimum prison sentence of five years, we'd soon be on our way to prison equality.

How about false rape charges? Long prison sentences for these should have been made mandatory many years ago. The police should be given special training to track down and arrest all offenders here. This should increase the female prison population by thousands annually.

By introducing prison sentences for all who fail to keep their marriage vows and sue for divorce we should ensure that out of every 100 sent to prison, 75 would be women.

Let's take another leaf out of the Labour Party's book. They prevented men from applying for parliamentary selection in certain safe seats. Let's prevent men from going to prison for certain crimes. How about making speeding and drunk driving no longer a crime for men? More jolly jingles come to mind to advertise this move on TV. While a woman is seen being dragged out of a minute micra and handcuffed by two policemen we hear in the background: 'But for men - no crime - no time!'

By simply acknowledging the known truth that half domestic violence is committed by women, and by training our police to implement the dictum that 'the man must be believed' we should net a very large number of female criminals.

Sexual harassment of men in the workplace would prove another fertile field. How about introducing a 'seemly dress code'? Women not conforming by say, wearing a skirt more than an inch above the knee or by showing a bare midriff or a low-cut neckline, could then be sentenced to four to six weeks inside.

And, of course, there's always car parking! We could really roll 'em in with this one. Just make it illegal not to park within white lines or to leave more than a car's length between two vehicles when parking. There wouldn't be many women left outside!

How to achieve such legislation? I think we might approach one of the new fempees, one who has men's interests at heart, to introduce a private member's Bill.

What do you mean, 'Fat chance!'? How can you possibly say that fempees are not prepared to consider men's issues? Surely they represent the men in their constituencies? Biased? Surely not . . . Minister for men? Yes, I do see what you mean. Yes . . . as you say - 'Fat chance!'

top

social matters