When intelligence is trumped by gullibility.

Regular reader of this organ will have realised that our assertion is freedom to choose and follow (or not follow) a religion is a very important principle, with the only caveat that doing so doesn’t impact on others’ freedom to live.

Therefore, if one chooses to believe that your prophet visited the moon on the back of a winged horse, you are most welcome to. If, however, you also believe that you must slaughter non-believers, we’re going to disagree quite robustly.

It could be argued and has been by various parties that not believing in a creator is also an act of faith; proving a negative is a particularly difficult task after all.

There are those who feel that a belief in something for which you have little to no proof other than the word of a third party (i.e. the definition of “faith”) is a form of mental illness. There’s certainly an argument to be made there but, given that existential questions of creation are unlikely to be solved to a high degree of scientific proof and we’d need to solve the problem of infinite regression, we all live with that unresolved internal discussion. We generally function on a day to day basis however.

Some religious adherents clearly are suffering from a dangerous delusion though and are a danger to themselves and/or others. When your religious beliefs require you to act out the crucifixion on Easter weekend, self-flaggelate for Ashura, murder Cathars for having the wrong version of Christianity or fly planes into tower blocks, there’s clearly a problem of the mind that is impacting physical reality.

Consider then what mental illness might look like from an atheist regressive progressive point of view;

New York lawyer self-immolated in protest against climate change.

Full disclosure; I have no evidence of what David Buckel’s religious views were at the point of death but, given his acceptance of two of the key tenants of the Cultural Marxist agenda and the extremely rare instance of anyone only believing one or two of the dozen or so must-believe doctrines, we’re guessing he didn’t believe in a creator.

Chances are he probably said, “Oh God” or “Jesus fucking Christ” at some point quite soon after flicking the flint on the Zippo though.

Bill’s Opinion

Unless he was an extremely modest polymath, it’s a safe assumption that the gay and trans rights lawyer David Buckel did not have a full and detailed understanding behind the science of climate change.

Yet he’d fully-accepted the impending doom of climate change as a solid fact based only on the testimony of third parties, like an illiterate peasant in medieval Britain blindly following the village Priest’s encouragement to join the crusades to liberate Jerusalem from heathen rule.

Perhaps he was suffering from an underlying mental illness, but perhaps the religiosity of the climate change pantechnicon and its followers is indistinguishable from religion?

Either way, the outcome is that he’s toast.

The best women are men part 2

He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see.

Ayn Rand

The above quote is often summarised as, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

Consider then, the logical and ethical knots the UK Useful Idiots Labour Party is currently tying itself into;

Hundreds of Women Plan Mass Resignation from Labour Over Trans Ruling

For decades now, the party has been running a policy of women-only shortlists to select candidates to fight parliamentary seats. This has resulted in their current ratio of MPs; 101:129 female to male.

Let’s pause for a moment to question again whether equality of outcome is really our preference compared to equality of opportunity. Exhibit A in our proposition that all women shortlists perhaps might not result in the most stunningly intellectual representative for the voters;

Unedifying viewing, isn’t it. Consider whether, in a purely merit-based system of democracy, Diane Abbott would have a) ever been elected as an MP in the first place, or b) been continuously re-elected since 1987.

But back to all “women” shortlists.

The progressive types at Labour HQ decided a few months ago that the definition of “women” included anyone who identified as a woman. Let’s just expand that a little; they don’t need to dress like a woman, have been living as a woman for any period of time, have any medical assessment to confirm their transgender status and certainly they do not have to even consider any kind of hormonal or gender reassignment procedures. Quite simply, if they say they are, they are.

What could possibly go wrong? No, seriously, what could possibly go wrong with redefining fundamental existential nouns with meanings that have been universally understood for the entire history of the species?

Bill’s Opinion

We’re back to the dilemma du jour; the desire to not hurt one group’s sensitivities is being rudely interrupted by, oh I don’t know, let’s call it reality.

The progressive view is that history will judge as dinosaurs those raising the fact that humans are dimorphic. The alternate to this future is, of course, that the progressives are illogical to the point where they can only be suffering from almost clinical levels of cognitive dissonance or are simply mendacious.

 

Who benefits? No, who *really* benefits?

Those helpful people at the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) have released a new standard, this one is focusing on the cross-border sale of secondhand goods.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it? If we can standardise the sale or donation (for charity, for example) of secondhand goods we can improve health and safety outcomes, reduce buyer disappointment and regret and bring order to an unregulated market.

To read the detail of the standard, you’ll have to buy a copy, but the summary probably tells us enough to judge whether it will be effective and/or of any use.

The standard reflects that there are going to be existing health and safety standards in individual countries which will still apply but this standard seeks to categorise the secondhand goods by their usability and condition.

An example given would be a car; it is presumably important that the starter motor works, whereas whether or not the GPS software is up to date is very much a secondary concern.

The standard is trying to assist the end buyer in making an informed decision and to set their expectations accordingly about the functionality and quality of the product they are procuring. One method the standard suggests is a categorisation of A through to D of the condition and functionality of the goods.

Will it achieve this and is there a more efficient way of delivering the same outcome?

Well…… the people at ISO may not be aware of this but there’s a website called eBay that currently enables consumers to buy secondhand goods across borders. How does eBay provide information to a consumer in, say, London who is buying a secondhand component for a marine Diesel engine from a vendor in Florida?

The answer is, of course, that eBay uses a condition grading system combined with a free text narrative field to describe the product and an option to ask detailed questions about the product before committing to buy. If the delivered product fails to live up to the description provided, eBay has a dispute process that arbitrates between buyer and seller to attempt to find a fair outcome.

Bill’s Opinion

The International Organisation for Standardisation seems to be about 15 years too late; the market has already found a solution to this.

Any country that adopts the standard and applies it at their ports of import can be certain that the prices paid by the consumer will increase.

It should also be obvious that these increased prices will result in lower volumes of sales of imported secondhand goods and a commensurate likely increase in local sales of the equivalent new items. And perhaps that’s the point of this belated push to regulate standardise the secondhand market; the main beneficiaries will be the industries who supply the new items.

Ah, vested interests seeking government intervention again…..

Logical inconsistency boomerangs

Today’s amusement is at the expense of the regressive progressive Legacy Press (c) and their take on the Commonwealth Games, currently taking place on the Gold Coast of Australia.

For those unfamiliar with the Commonwealth Games, think of them as the Special Olympics for countries that were colonised by Great Britain with the exception of the USA and basket case countries like Zimbabwe (although Myanmar is still competing).

To underline the purpose of the games, the original name in 1930 was The British Empire Games. Basically, it’s a way for all the athletes who would normally do “a Brian Jones” (i.e. not exit the pools) in the Olympics to get a medal. Which is pretty sad really, given the fact the Olympic Games itself is just a convenient way to bundle into a single event a collection of sports nobody normally pays to watch.

If the Olympics and Commonwealth Games’ actual sporting events are relatively pathetic spectacles, the opening ceremonies are even more tedious. It’s as if the event organisers sat around the planning table and said to each other, “I know what’ll liven up the prospect of a couple of weeks of synchronised diving and rhythmic gymnastics; a West End musical-style opening ceremony! Someone get Andrew Lloyd Webber and Elton John on the phone, stat!“.

The problem is, of course, if you have signed up to the entire list of left-wing “correct” positions to take on everything, yesterday’s opening ceremony at the Commonwealth Games puts you into a tight spot, logically.

Why?

The Aboriginals; yesterday’s song and dance show was heavily-influenced by Australian Aboriginal dancing, music and ceremony.

On the one hand, commentators such as Phil Lutton want to underline the message that it’s time for Australia to ditch the historic links with the UK, that a constitutional monarchy is an anachronism in the 21st century, and that things were altogether better before Australia was colonised. On that theme, many of his colleagues from his newspaper have campaigned vociferously to change the date of the national day, Australia Day, from its current date of January 26th (the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet) to show solidarity with the oppressed first people.

On the other hand, many of those Aboriginal people willingly took place in the opening ceremony of an event which celebrates Australia’s history as a member of the British Empire and, latterly, the British Commonwealth, and yet there was a small group protesting outside the stadium.

What is the correct position to take without destroying one’s progressive credentials? It’s a fine line to tread and one for which Phil has our deepest sympathies, after all, he desperately wouldn’t want to express the “wrong” sentiment and incur the wrath of the Twitter pile-on crowd.

What results, of course, is an article brimming with cognitive dissonance, probably not helped by the late evening hour that he had to file his copy and the, presumably, free-flowing Aussie beer in the press room;

He starts in rambling, grammatically-clunky style, desperately trying to keep the representation of the para-athletes in parity with the able-bodied, and doesn’t improve much from there;

Surely, this is not the time for jingoism in our fragile sporting climate.

A statement he then quickly goes on to disprove, of course, dismissing the link to England as an anachronism whilst cheering the kilted Scots. News flash for Phil, it was called the “British Empire” for a reason; many of the more successful colonial masters weren’t actually English; Hong Kong’s Jardine (Scottish), Australia’s Macquarie (Scottish), New Zealand’s Hobson (Irish), for example. Further evidence might be found by perusing the place names of countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, where there will be plenty of instances of Aberdeen, Hamilton and Perth. The monarch of the empire may have been German English, but a large proportion of their subjects probably only stepped foot in England to travel to a port of emigration.

Then we get an anthropological history lesson, which is a nice touch from the Sydney Morning Herald’s sports correspondent;

….but, if we agree that the first people to arrive in Australia landed 65,000 years ago, they’d have done very well to have settled 2,700km away within the same year. Oh well, it’s a sports journalist we’re reading here, after all.

The article continues by celebrating the beaches of the Gold Coast and a cursory nod at some local government corruption in the 1980s, which is, well, obscure and not relevant.

At least we can all agree that Prince Charles and his wife did look out of place. Well, overdressed compared to the dancers at least. Actually, overdressed compared to any resident of the Gold Coast of Australia, a place where “singlet” is considered appropriate wardrobe regardless of the social appointment; beach, bar, court appearance, state funeral, etc…..

Bill’s Opinion

Sometimes a sporting event is just a sporting event and doesn’t really need to be used as a cultural guilt weapon, especially as very few Australians are even related to anyone who has ever oppressed an Aboriginal, let alone actually been personally responsible for such oppression.

Also, regardless of how one feels about the relevance of the role of a monarch in 21st century Australia, surely the one person who looks least out of place at the British Empire Commonwealth Games is a member of the British monarchy?

Lastly, could someone also please have a word with the Aboriginal people of Australia and get them to agree on whether the Commonwealth Games are a good or a bad thing so that we can all virtue signal in the correct manner, please?

Special pleaders gonna plead specially

In what surely must be an April Fools’ joke, the former CEO of Walmarts complained that Amazon was too big and was putting small competitors out of business.

Which small competitors?

Toys R Us and J C Penny.

No, really he said that with a straight face.

Just a reminder for those not living in a country without a Walmart or one of their subsidaries; Walmart is a retailer with $500 billion annual revenue. It’s also the largest private sector employer in the USA with 2.3 million staff.

Ask the owner of an independent local store in small town USA how they feel about the prospects of a Walmart’s outlet being built in the neighbourhood and you’ll hear opinions not dissimilar to those expressed by Bill Simon;

Let’s examine those claims, shall we?

“Destroying jobs”

If we take a narrow view of the economy, the jobs lost at Toys R Us for example, this statement seems true. However, the products purchased online at Amazon rather than at a Toys R Us outlet are still required to be manufactured (mainly in China in both cases, but let’s ignore that as applying equally), packaged and distributed to the consumer. In addition, the consumers who have saved money by purchasing the same product at a cheaper price will now have the product PLUS some extra dollars which they will spend elsewhere in the economy, thus creating employment.

“Destroying value in the sector”

This is a quite vague statement and leans very heavily on how one defines “value” and from which subjective viewpoint one is looking. From the point of view of the CFO of Walmart, yes value is being destroyed, in terms of balance sheet and share price. In terms of the consumer, value is being created with savings, convenience and increased choice.

Simon’s comments were in response to President Trump’s tweet on the subject;

….which seems to be claiming Amazon is a bad actor for using a government service (the postal service) that happens to be provided at a loss.

Bill’s Opinion

Bill Simon and President Trump should really know better than to spout these economic fallacies. Perhaps they do and are being mendacious.

Simon was perfectly at ease with using the size of the corporation he ran to undermine the business models of hundreds if not thousands of smaller competitors. In fact, what a wonderful advertisement for the creative destruction of the free market that even companies as powerful as Toys R Us, JC Penny and Walmart can have their business models disrupted to the benefit of the consumer.

If President Trump doesn’t like the way the US Postal Service is run or the rules under which it operates, he should probably write a stern letter tweet to himself describing which changes he should make.

Special pleading, especially when using unemployment as a reason, is always at the detriment of the consumer who, by the way, has already unanimously-voted with their wallets.

Show me on the doll where the mean words hurt you, Mr Warner

This post is about cricket and requires some background knowledge about the sport to fully-comprehend the points being made. Feel free to continue reading, of course, but caveat emptor that it may be boring or obscure if you’re not from a Commonwealth country or you are American or American lite Canadian.

This month, the Australian men’s team have been playing a series in South Africa. Some unpleasantness occurred between the two teams in the 2nd test match around very personal comments made by the South African players about the wife of Australian batsman, David Warner (prior to their marriage, she’d had a very brief bathroom rendevous with a famous rugby player). The usual modern not-quite fight occurred in the tunnel on the way back to the changing rooms.

Australia’s team and spin machine went into overdrive claiming some imaginary line of decency or topics for “sledging” had been crossed and demanded sanctions on the South African players, particularly and suspiciously on the one player who had been causing them most concern with his skills on the pitch.

This week, whilst staring down the barrel of another test match defeat, an Australian player was caught red-handed interfering with the ball in an attempt to produce a difficult to read spin on the flight of the ball to the batsman. How blatant was the attempt? Yellow duct tape being rubbed across the ball and then the tape was stuffed into his underwear once the coaching staff tipped him off that the TV cameras had spotted it.

In the subsequent press conference the captain admitted to pre-meditated cheating but mentioned that it was a group decision of the “leadership team”. He also brought the younger player who’d been caught cheating into the glare of the camera lights to answer questions.

Back home in Australia, much angst and many pixels and column inches are being produced along the lines of “When did we become a nation of cheats?”.

Two days after the cheating scandal, the non-sports correspondents are allowed free reign on the subject, which has resulted in these two stunning examples of whataboutery;

Firstly, Ross Gittins;

And the 2nd funniest man called “Birmingham” in Australia;

To summarise both articles so you don’t have to slog through the grammar and syntax errors (they’ve fired all the sub-editors); Australian cricket is played by a bunch of cheats because of a recent federal government policy on asylum-seekers arriving by boat that you voted for (or, at least, didn’t vote against).

Bill’s Opinion

The Australian men’s national cricket team is loathed by all cricket-playing countries for two reasons;

  1. Their lack of sportsmanship. This commenced around the time of the Allan Border captaincy in the early 1980s when a win at all costs and hate the opposition attitude became the norm. At the start of this era there was probably a caveat of “within the laws of the game” applied to the win at all costs ethos but the unpleasant on-field banter commenced in earnest at that point. The current culture of the squad is a direct consequence of those years and the incremental effect during the years in between. Blatant ball-tampering to win an otherwise lost test is simply a natural extension of a psychological inability to accept defeat to a superior team.
  2. Their hypocrisy. The Australian cricket team would have won every Olympic gold medal in “sledging” for 40 years if one had existed. On-pitch insults have always been extremely personal in nature and topics have included the wives of the person being insulted. The temerity of an Australian cricketer claiming some moral high ground over an insult about his wife resulted in ironic belly-laughs from everyone in the non-Australian cricket world.

The way the cheating scandal was handled by the coaching team, captain and vice captain is also highly instructive; there is no such thing as a “leadership team” when blame needs to be owned. The boss is responsible, no-one else. That’s the captain of the team if the decision was made without the coach’s knowledge or the coach if it was. No ifs, not buts; own your decision and do not throw anyone junior under the bus. Be a man or step aside.

Lastly, if you are happy to throw insults around about other people’s personal lives, yet you’ve married a woman who may have previously dressed like a hooker and gave blow-jobs to strangers in toilets, shut the fuck up about “lines of decency” you silly short man.

I’ve only got three months left to live but at least I’m not Anderson Cooper

“Hello and good evening, welcome to Anderson Cooper 360. I’m Anderson Cooper and for those wondering about the numbers, one way of measuring the planet shown behind me is by dividing it into 360 degrees. Obviously the inference being that, here on CNN, we report all the facts from all angles without bias, agenda or spin.”

Oh my God, I get this goddamn sick feeling in my stomach when I lie. I hate it.

Tonight we will be analysing the latest developments from the alleged hacking of the presidential election by the Russians. We will be discussing today’s explosive disclosure that somebody unimportant to President Trump met someone with a Russian-sounding name at a suburban Starbucks in 2009, or was standing in line at the counter at the same time at least.

On the panel tonight we have my colleague at CNN, Dave Democrat, another colleague here at CNN, Lisa Liberal, and to prove we aren’t an echo chamber, we also have CNN host, Don Lemon.

Christ, here we go again; rinse and repeat, speculation, strawman, question whether there will be an impeachment, discuss it for an hour and then come to the conclusion that it’s still not the smoking gun we’ve been hoping for these past 14 months.

Fuck! It’s been FOURTEEN MONTHS! Please God, when can we move on and start reporting news that actually means something?

So first, let me ask you, Don, what’s the significance of these latest shocking revelations?

Well, I’m glad you asked me that Anderson, and can I just say that these allegations, if they turn out to be true, are the most outrageous developments since yesterday’s news that a Whitehouse intern once drank Russian vodka in a bar in Columbus, Ohio after they graduated from college?

Yes you may, Don, that’s a great perspective, thanks. Do continue, please.

Yes Anderson, these developments are indeed scandalous. We still don’t have the full details of what coffee was consumed by whom although we do know that the member of the campaign in question usually opts for a Skinny Decaf Venti with hazelnut syrup. Whether this was their order on this occasion we are yet to ascertain. (Continues on this theme for 20 minutes)

Is this what I’ve become? Born into one of the richest, most powerful families in the country, Yale-educated, on a trajectory for greatness and I’m stuck here 5 nights a week listening to people agreeing with themselves that we’ve got a buffoon as executive leader?

Where did it go wrong, that’s what I want to know?

I know where it went wrong; my fucking parents. Why on earth did they give me 3 fucking last names? “Anderson Hays Cooper”? They’re all bloody surnames. I was fated to have a shit life from they day they Christened me.

What’s wrong with “David” for fuck’s sake?

(Lemon continuing) ….and so we’ve got a crew on the scene waiting for the local Sheriff’s department to make a statement on the nationalities of the staff at the particular Starbucks and whether or not any of them have Russian backgrounds or, indeed, once played Tetris as a child”.

Thanks Don, great analysis and insight as always. I’m afraid that’s all we’ve got time for this evening. Tune in tomorrow for further breaking news on this historic situation. Goodnight.

Oh, please God kill me now, let it be over.

Bill’s Opinion

Apologies to Half Man Half Biscuit.

Today’s episode of Sesame Street is brought to you by the number 96 and the colour red

Well, this is an unusual state of affairs; the city of Liverpool takes offence at a t-shirt.

What features does the offensive t-shirt have that has insulted the normally stoic Scousers?

It’s red, has the number 96 and the title of a Bob Marley song printed on the back.

I think you’ll agree this is an excellent case for us to consider making an exception to the principle that freedom of speech is paramount. Real harm could occur if people were to be seen walking around in public with such an egregious display of offence on their torsos.

For those who may be confused as to the reasons why Topman’s t-shirt is so terrible, some background;

96 Liverpool football fans died in a crowd crush in 1989 at the Hillsborough stadium.

Liverpool Football Club’s colour is red.

That’s it.

Bill’s Opinion

Get over yourselves Liverpool. You don’t have a copyright on the number 96 and the colour red.

Perhaps, if you are the grieving family of one of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, you should consider not answering the phone to journalists seeking a renta-quote 30 years later and, instead, get on with your life.

The 19 worst countries for gender equality

To celebrate International Identity Politics Day Women’s Day, Business Insider Australia had an article showing the worst countries in the world to be a female human (there’s some sub-editor gotchyas in the article but we won’t spoil the surprise for you).

Actually, when you scan the list, these also correlate quite closely with the worst countries in the world to be a human of any gender, but that doesn’t fit the day’s narrative so well.

Have a browse of the bottom of the list (page 21 here), compiled by our old friends the World Economic Forum at great expense to the shareholders of the various 1,000 contributing corporates propping up this cottage industry of stating the bleedin’ obvious;

The countries at the bottom of the list all seem to share a common theme but I just can’t quite put my finger on it, see if you can see a trend;

You could probably get a good kebab in most of them but I don’t think that’s the most important common factor somehow.

Bill’s Opinion

Just like with the pollution of the world’s oceans with plastic or any other number of important global issues of the day, it’s always useful to closely examine people’s actions more than their words.

Treat with the utter contempt they deserve the people who loudly proclaim they are strongly supporting the rights and well-being of women, yet limit their actions to hectoring for equality of outcomes in western corporates rather than taking any action whatsoever targeting the brutal oppression of women for religious or cultural reasons in majority Muslim countries.

If cultures are all relative and equal, please explain why these countries are net exporters of migrants rather than immigration attractions.

Oh, and in case you were curious as the the 20th placed worst country, it’s Fiji. After that, normal service is resumed and we’re back the the Islamic countries again.

UPDATE;

I’ve just realised Timor-Leste is predominately Catholic. There’s always an exception to the rule, obviously. In this case, the exception has 1.3m inhabitants which could be considered a rounding error.

When Hollywood is your moral compass….

Consider the possibility you may be quite lost.

Clementine “the other gift that keeps on giving” Ford* has been given some more column space this week. It almost feels wrong to pick her thoughts to pieces as she makes it so easy for anyone with half an hour on Google and a semi-curious mind.

In fact, sometimes her arguments are so irrational, illogical, easily disproved and emotional that one wonders whether she’s Australia’s equivalent of Henry Root. If she isn’t a parody, what remains of the sub-editorship at the Sydney Morning Herald legacy press ™ should probably resign and find a profession in which they have some level of competence.

The word salad we’re amused by this week is here; the real problem with women in film.

As is her idiom, the argument meanders around a little, never quite lingering on a specific point long enough to find a kernel of fact or objective truth. Fortunately, we can complete the unfinished task for her.

The key issues she raises are the following;

  • Women are underrepresented in the big budget, blockbuster films.
  • When they are in these films, they are more likely to be scantily clad and not say much. They are certainly not going to be depicted as intellectuals in the STEM subjects.
  • Disney movies have started to use titles that don’t have female names such as “Princess” even when the lead character is a Princess.
  • The paying public prefer it that way. This is a bad thing.

Let’s be somewhat reductive for a moment and summarise what dear Clementine is (in the words of Cathy Newman) trying to say; “people prefer to watch films of which, for ideological reasons, I disapprove“.

Perhaps I’m guilty of building a strawman here, so let’s look at those key points again.

Imagine the negotiation between a couple with a disposable income large enough to allow them to pay a babysitter on Saturday night, head out for a bite to eat and catch a film at the cinema.

Let’s assume the wife is of La Ford’s Third Wave Feminism persuasion (statistically unlikely, by the way; only 23% of American women even identify as “feminist” and far fewer “radical“) and she would like to see the Oscar winning movie, A Fantastic Woman.

On the other hand, the husband has spent his working week risking his life in a blue collar job (males are privileged enough to suffer 93% of the deaths in the workplace), being hectored about the patriarchy and watching as Women In Leadership quotas are applied to the roles above him. His entire waking moments these days seems to consist of being blamed for all societal ills and told he is part of the problem due to three personal attributes completely beyond his control, namely; skin colour (white), gender (male) and sexuality (heterosexual).

It may be understandable if he chooses not to pay to watch a film about the dire life of a transgender man living in Santiago, Chile on his day off.

So they compromise and watch something with superheroes or a crime thriller.

La Ford’s issue with Disney films has a simple explanation too; in recent years, Disney has found that childrens’ films with female names in their titles don’t do so well. This can be tested as a hypothesis by taking the list here, sorting by gross revenue (adjusted for inflation) and rating. After the two 1950s classics, Cinderella and Snow White, the next female titled film is the still ambiguously-titled Beauty and the Beast at Position 15. Next is Pocahontas at Position 20 then Little Mermaid at 25.

Disney is a business. Calling a film “Princess Sparkle” sells fewer tickets. It’s almost as if, I dunno, a film branded as female is more attractive to half of the population than the other half.

Perhaps the claim that Hollywood sexualise female characters is the most amusing. Does this come as a surprise to anyone?

Since when has the entertainment industry not been about sexualising females? Read the lyrics of Coward’s Don’t put your daughter on the stage, Mrs. Worthington for a veiled reference as to the venality of the profession.

The British joke punchline, “…..said the actress to the bishop” hints at the perception of a continuum linking the professions of actress and whore.

The surprise is that anyone honestly believes Hollywood has any moral basis to its works and the industry has any incentive to depict women in ways that fit the narrative of Third Wave Feminists such as Clementine Ford.

Bill’s Opinion

A common mistake by those on the left is to confuse what they feel should be reality with what is actually the case.

People are voting with their wallets and this greatly disappoints Clementine Ford.

It gets worse however; the Oscars have been increasingly picking box office failures as their Best Film Winner.

Which may explain why the public have, in droves, stopped watching the Oscars ceremony.

They’re watching something but it isn’t the virtue signalling of the luvvies.

If Clementine Ford’s opinions were popular, she wouldn’t be writing unedited OpEds in a free to read legacy newspaper with declining readership and revenue.

To stay with the film references, The Sydney Morning Herald’s annual readership figures are one of the most rapidly declining series since the Police Academy sequels.

* Herpes is the original gift that keeps on giving. Draw your own conclusions.