The cosmic echoes of April Fool’s Day continue to reverberate, through blogosphere and mainstream media alike.
Gianna has begun posting cute baby photos of newborn Harley, prompting Sedgwick to speculate on his parentage and implicate, wait for it, John Quiggin!! He seems to have overlooked the obvious clue of hair colour, which tends to point more in the direction of Gareth Parker. Surely not, Gianna! Then again, the real father is at least equally right wing. They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but the converse may also be true.
Meanwhile, Mad Margo reveals that John Howard is “leaning on public servants to improperly finger Latham”. The mind boggles. Don’t they realise he’s likely to break their arms if they don’t extract their digits from his bodily orifices quick smart?
The equally loopy Guy Rundle has discovered how to save the ABC: – have its Board selected by a public Tattslotto system, and give them 2 TV stations instead of one! I’d like to know what they’ve been smoking over at Arena, because I want some.
Australian Dimocrat sillyperson Brian Greig reckons John Howard and Mark Latham are both just a couple of ageing poofter bashers. Well, you can’t really blame Latham what with all those public servants fingering his rectal cavity. But I wonder what Howard’s excuse is?
Finally, Paul Watson maintains a consistently warped world view, following up Gen X “we wuz robbed” whinge no. 953 with a fearless post arguing that a protest by a bunch of spoiled upper middle class uni students, occupying the V-C’s office at Monash in support of their inalienable right to continue to be subsidised by poorer taxpayers, is more newsworthy than the shooting murder of Melbourne gangster no. 25. Personally I don’t give a shit about either story, but that’s probably because I’m a spoiled, complacent baby boomer wanker. And proud of it.
Sadly, despite Harley’s amazing resmblance to one of my family at the same age, it’s merely a coincidence.
don’t worry, despondent, DNA results are still pending…
Ok I know I’m missing the tongue in cheeck nature of this post entirely but….
Brian Greig is peddling his mantra all over the place of late. His solution seems to be to counter a silly generalisation with an even broader and sillier generalisation. Not so sure? How about his abridged version recently aired on ABC’s Insiders.
The unstated concern here is that a lack of male role models produces an effeminacy in boys or the fear that it might lead to homosexuality itself.
No, the real crisis in masculinity is the macho male culture of violence and rape, the rejection of female thinking and behaviour and the deep insecurity that many men have towards sexual difference.
Funny. I must have missed the obligatory rape classes while I was growing up. Greig undermines his own argument. Surely if boys are exposed to many types of male role models other than just the sports stars then they will end up far more rounded and better socialised than those who aren’t?
And another thing. Why is it ok to indulge in some pretty blatant stereotyping by saying that some footballer social groups have a culture of rape (and I’m not saying that that doesn’t exist) whereas it’s most definately not ok to say some other types of social groups – teenage Lebanese-Australian gangs for example – have a similarly warped culture? If grieg can see that masculinity for men in general and footballers in particular leads inexorably to “violence and rape” then why not follow the logic through to it’s non PC end?
And how come I can’t type in a bloody link without stuffing it up? Old Mrs Billingham from class 4E has a lot to answer for….
The correct link is
… a comedy of errors.
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2004/s1080646.htm
Anyone who advocates applying basic logical analysis to ideas cab be forgiven for almost any other error, bargaz.