Thursday, 10 January 2013

Women of a 'certain age and appearance'

Newspaper headline:

Women of a 'certain age and appearance' struggle to get on TV

Is this not a statement of the obvious and why does it matter? The equality obsession in the UK is poisonous. It is really 'sullen socialism'. Women prefer to look at pretty girls just as men do.

Alice Arnold: Women of a 'certain age and appearance' struggle to get on TV

The article says:

Targeting sexism and ageism in the world of television, she argued the BBC ought to do more to put a stop to it.

It seems to me that we are living in a time when people are targeting human nature in order to put a stop to it.

This article about transgender people, whoever or whatever they are, gives me the same impression. The target is not (only) to prevent victimisation but to remake human nature along rational, egalitarian lines. The target is to remake the sexes and even the very idea of the sexes, just as we are remaking nations and the very idea of nations.

I am very impatient with the idea that treating men and women differently is wrong and I find monstrous the idea that age discrimination is wrong. These things seem based on an atheistic and anti-conservative concept of human beings and human nature - the idea that human nature and even human bodies should be recreated according to human ideas. Perhaps this does not make sense. I am chilling on Saturday morning enjoying, after much travel, a clean, warm flat and watching snow fall on the roofs of Bucharest old town.


  1. I'm not sure if the goal is to remake the sexes or abandon them altogether. It's difficult to decide what to make of this - we once had to condemn as evil people who revelled in their humanity and their innate nature as creatures with passions and desires - giving into "natural" desires. Now, they seek to change what the definition of "natural" is - the goal is no longer to accept and revel in human nature and abandon all efforts at Godliness, but to deny that there is such a thing as human nature, to deny that there is such a thing as humanity on the deepest level: identity and being is entirely the making of the individual.

    It is the realisation of the revaluation of all values on a basic, erotic level: these people are arrogating to themselves the prerogative of creating their own identity and being-- thus taking on a role that previously was reserved for God (as the source of all being) or, to the agnostic, nature and the natural world.

    I'm not sure where this will lead: no identity I can dream up will be as real as the being inherent to me as a creature, so this whole concept of "ageism", "sexism", "homosexism", "queerism", etc. is unsustainable. It will lead to an *absence* of identity rather than the creation of new identity, leaving people in an abyss. It's nihilistic.

  2. There certainly is a kind of campaign being waged against human nature on many fronts - but hasn't there always been? The major religions (especially Christianity) do not exactly go with the human grain, but have often run counter to it, when they place the emphasis on pacifism, sexual and moral continence, self-denial and even self-abnegation. In every age, humans try to remake humans - it's just that once we used to do it in the name of God, whereas now we do it for Social Justice

  3. She ought to be there (on tv) because she's good at her job and not because she's either a Bimbo nor a Dyke.

  4. Let's just get it over and abolish the human race while we're at it.

  5. Unsure on what your understanding of human nature is from that article.

  6. Big question but I think men and women are meant to be very different and it is nice to look at good looking women. And best to stick to traditional way of doing things unless strong reason not to do so. Equality does not matter at all. I think the universe and biology were designed for a purpose and men and women are meant to be complementary not similar, or equal.

  7. I applaud from the back your attempt to garner a reaction, but not your usual standard of argument in this article or your responses. Contrary to usual with your writing, this article doesn't seem to start (or indeed finish) from a decent understanding of your premise.