• In the feminist dog house – again!

      1 comment

    Today, my regular time on my computer varied from the norm. This because there was a “webcast” carried out by the directors of Phoenix Group and I was treated to what has now in this “Time of Covid” the new normal for shareholder presentations observing the directors in front of their own computers in their own homes. I must admit to doing something which has according to the pundits has also become “normal” – looking past the “talking head” and looking at the room in which the broadcaster is.

    This started at 9AM and as a result the normal start of this morning’s computer time came after this “webcast”. After downloading emails and deleting the junk, I open up a browser which opens on a web page many internet users use, that of Google! It was at this point I was informed by Google’s Oh so PC! management that it was “International Women’s Day 2021” – which explains the Oh so PIC (politically incorrect) image above!

    By publishing the image of the young lady in her underwear above, am I denigrating and demeaning women? Well naturally those members (of both genders) of the Women’s Equality Party will say yes!
    GOTO: https://www.womensequality.org.uk/
    But then to paraphrase quote the late Mandy Rice-Davies, “……..they would say that wouldn’t they.”
    So….. How do I plead to the charge of denigrating and demeaning women?
    Not Guilty!
    So….. What evidence can I put forward in my defence?

    Quite simply the evidence of the image of the young lady herself!
    You see, this is a topic (taking photographs of professional female models) is something I have first hand experience of!
    I can therefore talk with authority.
    Here is a FACT. A fact that the members of the WEP don’t like! But then not liking facts does not mean those facts are not valid. They are!

    You see, the young lady above was paid a considerable amount of money for putting on the underwear and posing for the photograph which she knew full well would be published widely. So, who paid her the money? The answer was the manufacturer/distributor/retailer of the underwear she is wearing!

    So, who did the the aforesaid manufacturer/distributor/retailer intend to view the photograph?

    Teenage boys?

    No.

    Women?

    Yes.

    Lesbian women?

    No, just women in general – most of whom are heterosexual.

    So, what’s the problem?

    Clearly, for the WEP it is with the male humans who view the above photograph for their own lascivious reasons!
    The WEP (and many in the Labour and Liberal-Democrat parties) find this deeply objectionable. The other reason why they object to the above image – and this actually is a reason I have some sympathy with – is that the image is clearly of a young lady who is very attractive – both from the neck up and the neck down. They would point out that this causes problems amongst many women who do not look like the young lady but would deeply wish to.

    Here we have to address another FACT: The reason why the manufacturer/distributor/retailer commissions the photograph of this beautiful young lady is because this helps them sell more of their product that they would were they to use a young lady who let us use the now PIC phrase, “a plain Jane”.
    NB: Many – including myself – would regard this as cruel.
    At this point we must state that this policy of the manufacturer/distributor/retailer is NOT intended to cause sexual arousal in teenage boys who are most unlikely to purchase their products!

    So there you have it!

    Oh, by the way, if any of our female readers would disagree with my assumptions and assertions, please send in your comments.

    Write a comment