Sarah struggles with Jamie

For a start, the gratuitous use of the photo is because she’s an absolute honey:

Now to the issue. Dearest Sarah Rainey, who looks all of 16 as a few commenters mentioned, has problems with Jamie Oliver’s 15 minute meals:

My kitchen is full of smoke. I’m tossing a sizzling wok of vegetables with my left hand and searing a sirloin steak with my right. Mushrooms are browning in another pan, and a nest of egg noodles is congealing in a pot of bubbling salt water.

Presumably this is the famous multitasking we hear about ad nauseam.

I’m attempting a recipe from Jamie Oliver’s new book, Jamie’s 15 Minute Meals, and rather than the “delicious, nutritious, super-fast food” that’s promised, I’m feeling flustered, hungry and stressed out.

My first thought was: “Perhaps for you dear,” but then lionel_joseph said it so much better:

I hate to find myself defending the fat tongued mockney eedjut [referring to Jamie, not Sarah of course – JH], but if it takes you 5 minutes to finely chop some ginger, garlic and chillis then you’re not really that competent with a knife. That’s no great sin, but knife skills aren’t an unimportant part of being a “competent cook” which is what you claim to be.

I’d also suggest that the amount of time it takes to cook something for the first time is probably not an accurate reflection of how long it really takes for the meal to be prepared. Unless you’re very prepared, it’s will always take longer the first time and after a few attempts you’ll be much quicker. That would really be a much fairer assessment.

I’m going to go and self flagellate now as penance for doing his publisher’s job.

Incidentally, that comment had the most likes of any.   Maybe our Sarah should stick to journalism.

No, hang on …

39 comments for “Sarah struggles with Jamie

  1. October 3, 2012 at 04:02

    Point taken.
    Where is the Saudi Arabian edition, the one with Sarah airbrushed out?

  2. October 3, 2012 at 06:55

    Point also taken on that.

  3. Rossa
    October 3, 2012 at 08:34

    15 mins to cook maybe but that certainly doesn’t include prep time. And I’d challenge lionel_joseph on his assertion too. By the time you’ve taken out the garlic, chilli and ginger from the cupboard or fridge, skinned garlic, deseeded chilli if you don’t like it too hot, peel the ginger and then chop all 3 then I think 5 mins will have gone by quite easily. And my knife skills are still fine from my days as a chef, thanks.

    Biggest time savers in cooking any meal is organisation and timing. I can juggle up to 6 things cooking at the same time, warm the plates and set the table and bring it altogether at the same time with everything perfectly cooked. But then I’ve had 40 years of practice, cooking nearly every day!

    There are very few main meals that only take 15 mins!

  4. Moggsy
    October 3, 2012 at 09:48

    It is absolutely true that It takes longer to prepare a recipe the first time, even if you are experienced in the kitchen. You can minimise time with preparation and knowing how long different things take to cook properly so they all come together at the same time.
    I expect Jamie can just about get it done in the time with some practice but maybe they push it with some of those recipes?

    Some of his Italian recipes are really good.

    Rossa is right and why rush it anyway? Take a few minutes longer and enjoy… ^_^

  5. October 3, 2012 at 09:57

    Completely agree – why rush food?

  6. wiggiatlarge
    October 3, 2012 at 11:31

    Why anybody should believe what Jamie Oliver writes is beyond me, he is not a chef and has never been more than a cook in his fathers pub, he is a celebrity and that says it all today, with less and less people actually cooking the people who flock to his restaurants that are overpriced and that he has never cooked in are there as with most things today ‘because’ it’s Jamies place ! the same way certain ingredients sell if Delia uses them or in the case of certain local restaurant that is just average that she used for a wedding reception you now have to book, what extra people expect because Delia used the place once I have no idea.
    We live in a celebrity led environment that means Olivers last book 30 minutes sold 1.5 million copies and how many people are now cooking dinners in 30 minutes answers on a postcard or should that be a planche, what ! you haven’t got one.
    Rossa is right and it really doesn’t matter.

  7. October 3, 2012 at 11:57

    I have a Jamie Oliver mug I got from a charity shop. Does that count? [Good mug actually – says boy racer – amusing to others in my hands.]

  8. Moggsy
    October 3, 2012 at 13:06

    Suddenly it all gets a bit “lets hate Jamie Oliver”? His crime being.. him? Did he kill someone and I missed it?

    I can cook a few things inside 30 mins. And a few kids quick “can so-and-so come for dinner” cheats inside 15.

  9. wiggiatlarge
    October 3, 2012 at 13:37

    Well, no and no, celebrity being the word in what I wrote that gives the clue, I could equally have said the same for Katie Price amongst others, someone else who sells a lot of books she doesn’t write and has countless followers of her pink and plastic lifestyle !

  10. October 3, 2012 at 21:08

    Idea: If one is so hungry that preparation of the eats has to be kept down to 15 minutes – have a flippin’ cheese sandwich, pickled onion and a bottle of beer. Use the remaining minutes to read a few pages of a good book.

  11. October 3, 2012 at 21:28


  12. Amfortas
    October 4, 2012 at 02:48

    I wanted to post this comment to the Jill Meagher thread but there was no post box there for me. Maybe you can fix that James, transfer it across and delete this first paragraph.

    No-one has mentioned the ABC, our taxpaid national broadcaster for which Jill Meagher worked.

    The ABC’s news and comments were kept full of the Meagher rape and murder for days and suddenly, oddly, 30,000 people took to the streets. Yet murders happen every week. Rapes too. They do not get such coverage nor huge marches.

    Organising such a ‘march’ takes great effort, backed by ‘organisation’, dedication to goals and the inclusion of a great many ‘workers’. How many ABC staff, paid by us, diverted their time and workplace assets to getting this march up and walking?

    We as a society are all aware that crimes occur. We support laws that severely punish the criminals who perpertrate them. We recognise that the criminal is not ‘the ordinary’ behaviour in a civilised society and that they are few, proportionally.

    Men are murdered at a far greater frequency than women. There are no marches for men. In Oz we have an ongoing crie de brainless – ‘Australia says NO to violence against women’. Men are ignored at best and treated as potential rapists and murderers all at worst. It is hysteria. It is fueled.

    The ABC is part of the fire that the fuel goes on.

  13. Rossa
    October 4, 2012 at 07:01

    Slow food. If you have a lot more time, Twilight, you can brew your own beer, pickle your onions (and your liver ;-)), churn butter, make cheese and bake your own bread. And read several books while waiting….zzz

  14. Moggsy
    October 4, 2012 at 08:24

    I am not sure why there is this downer for Jamie Oliver being expressed, even about his accent. He is a sucessful business man on who quite a lot of people depend for their wages. He has tried to improve the food offered in chools to make it more healthy. He seems to be a good quite kindly person.

    Amfortas. Ideally it should be “no violence against anyone”. Or it would be the so-called law of the jungle.

    Saying that, I do think there is often a qualative difference between the violence that (mostly men) inflict on other men compared to what they inflict on women.

  15. Amfortas
    October 4, 2012 at 08:34

    #Moggsy: “Amfortas. Ideally it should be “no violence against anyone”. Or it would be the so-called law of the jungle.”

    I am happy to be in total agreement with you, m’dear.

    So why $73 million’s worth of TV ads that miss men from the message and focus totally on women?

    #Moggsy: “Saying that, I do think there is often a qualative difference between the violence that (mostly men) inflict on other men compared to what they inflict on women.”

    There is NO EXCUSE for violence, nor for alluding to different ‘qualitatives’. And why have you omited women’s violence against men?

    My experience, not reflected in any statistics, is that there does not exist a man or boy over 16 who has not been gratuitously slapped across the face and heart by a woman. No doubt you or others can tender exceptions that prove the rule.

  16. Moggsy
    October 4, 2012 at 09:09

    Amfortas, This is off topic for the post but to answer…
    I was speaking generally, so didn’t mention female on male violence. Or my comments would have so many qualifications they would be impossible to follow. Not doing a thesis here ^_^ While it surely does exist I do think female initiated violence is a tiny fraction of male initiated violence, and female on male maybe smaller still.

    I did a quick straw poll on the slapping thing and non of my (ok it was a) small sample could remember being slapped by a girl. Also from discussion the slap can be a public defence against a guy that just will not take no for an answer, back off or leave your boobs/ass alone. Best in a public place where there are other people, especially guys. Best used only when a person has little alternative and sparingly.

    I do agree there is no real excuse for violence except in defence against violence. I do think that violence is more often resorted to by males. I do think sexual violence is an extra applied to women along with all the causes that might make a guy more violent with a guy, robbery, dominance, looking at someone wrong.

    I am also pretty sure that with some violence is more likely to be done when they know the victim can not really defend themselves or there will be less chance of any other come back. That balance does not work in women’s favour.

  17. Amfortas
    October 4, 2012 at 10:43

    #Moggsy: “I did a quick straw poll ….While it surely does exist I do think female initiated violence is a tiny fraction of male initiated violence, and female on male maybe smaller still.”.

    Let us for a moment separate out the most oft quoted statistic – DV against women. One in Four women we are told are domestically abused. By a man of course – (except, lesbian attacks are never seperated out)

    Some women unfortunately are visited with violence, I agree and acknowledge. MOST people do not acknowledge, however, the higher figures for men being attacked by women. It is the dirty little secret in our society.

    1.2% of women are, according to a rare example of independent University research by Bruce Headly and Dorothy Scott of Melbourne University and David De Vaus of La Trobe.

    1.2%. This tiny percentage, well below the oft cited 25%, needed first aid, so bad was the violence they had experienced at the hands of a domestic partner.

    And so did some men. The same research shows 1.8% for men needing first aid, a full 50% higher.

    Even smaller percentages of both needed a doctor’s attention. But again more men than women. 1.5% men vs 1.1% women.

    Moreover, the Headly, Scott and De Vaus summary measure of experiencing a range of forms of assault fails to reveal any preponderance of assaults on women:

    4.7% of the sample reported being assaulted ‘in some way’ during the last 12 months; 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women.

    Again, that is over half as many men more than women. And so far below the mythical 25%, the 1:4, terribly, awfully suffering women, as to make a total rejection of feminist lies.

    What must be untangled – so that effective measures can be put into place – is the real incidence of such violence from the bogus statistical misrepresentations that are serving an entirely different agenda.

    The critical issue of DV is all too often overlooked completely; it’s low experience in the community.

    • 94.4% of people reported in Headly et al, being neither perpetrators nor victims of violence.

    • 2.5% report both assaulting and being assaulted.

    • 2.1% report being assaulted but not committing assault.

    • 1.0% report assaulting their partner but not being assaulted.

    No sign of the Ubiquitously claimed 1:4 anywhere.

    This independent research showed clearly that DV affects a miniscule proportion of the population, and on every measure, but one, men suffered Greater domestic violence FROM women than women did from men, and in greater percentage numbers.

    The one measure? She calls the police far more often.

    Now Moggsy, dear, this was Independant, random sample research. Not a personal straw poll of a few friends. Not ‘advocacy’ research funded by a women’s group. Show us what you have that makes some sense.

  18. October 4, 2012 at 11:54

    Oops – this was my fault. I transferred the comment from Amfortas but forgot to delete it here. It’s particularly unfortunate on my part as I deleted one comment on the Saturn post by haiku, citing being off topic.

    She might well look at this here, on the Jamie Oliver thread and say it was unjust. Yes, in the light of my memory loss, it was. Sorry. Now Moggsy’s responded, I can’t very well delete the Amfortas comment here so I’ve made a real mess of this.

    Not to worry. Hopefully we’ll survive. Memory’s getting bad. Too many things going on concurrently.

  19. Amfortas
    October 4, 2012 at 12:00

    The Homeland Security people will have a copy, James.


  20. Moggsy
    October 4, 2012 at 12:37

    Amfortas, You are quoting lots of figures (Angels dancing on pins ^_^)

    All my experience, and everything sensible I read and all my anyone tells me that:

    What I would think of as real honest to goodness domestic violence, in either direction, or on children is quite low. Most people just don’t do it. Of those who do do it, nothing in my experience so far convinces me that it is not far more initiated by guys than girls.

    I think domestic violence is often kept in the family unles/until it becomes unendurable. But I think it is still quite low percentagewize.

    The same goes for general violence. I am sure we have all experienced that at some point but for most of us it is thankfully rare.

    Some people, and we can argue about nurture, class and culture here… for whatever reasons are much more likely to be violent than others. They say that 90% of crime is perpetrated by a fairly tiny proportion of the population. I think the same is true of violence in general, but the few who do it love to spread it around so we all get to “benefit” from it.

    That Is one reason why I do believe prison does work because, if for no other reason, it keeps the people most like to do bad things away from the ones they are most like to do bad things to.

    I am quite convinced that those who are like to do violence are much more prone if they think they will “get away with it” or they won’t suffer immediate physical retribution, so females and children make “good” victims as do less capable looking guys.

    Personally I also think that is a good reason for anyone weaker including women to at least try stand up for themselves and to defend themselves.

    Like I also said there is the aspect of predatory sex to add on top of other reasons for violence and that traffic would mostly go in one direction.

    Am I really saying anything much here you honestly don’t think is pretty much fair, or balanced, or true?

  21. October 4, 2012 at 15:11

    @ Rossa ~ Your comment to mine reminded me of a quote from Carl Sagan:
    “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” . 😉

  22. October 4, 2012 at 16:30

    In other words, no counter-evidence, Moggsy, just “intuition” on how everything, given that you are under the spell, “tells you” it is. QED. The case rests.

    That’s precisely what we have been saying. You’d naturally prefer it to be as you like it, as the narrative says it is.

    Facts though are stubborn things. I bet you never even bothered looking through those copious links I provided.

    Svali, in 2000, said about the reality no one wanted to confront:

    Q But with the evidence out there, why aren’t more people concerned?

    A The evidence is there, but in my opinion, the average person does NOT want to know, and even when confronted with it, will look the other way.

    And Yuri Bezmenov, ex-KGB:

    They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.

    There’s no shame in it – we’re all programmed in various ways. My programming says that men and women should work in tandem, each playing to their strengths – I can’t kick that either.

    Women have been steadily assaulted by the feminist lie and intelligent women have spoken of this, from Elizabeth Fox-Genovese to Christine Hoff-Summers. They all say the same thing – and that’s the thing – there’s no discrepancy in the message – women have been sold a lie, with the media deeply complicit.

    As it appears to be all “for” women, women haven’t really questioned it on the whole. My crime in calling it out and quoting all these women is that I am a man – a heinous crime.

    I was discussing this whole furor with a woman, of all people, this afternoon and what is clear is that I was never going to convince the Moggsies and Cheries.

    That was never the point. The point was for the unbiased reader to see it all, to see through all the heated words and to take on board what has really been going on.

    Check out that study Amfortas quotes. It was genuine, was it not? To say it was rubbish because it didn’t say what you liked is a huge victory for the feminazis. In future weeks, from time to time, we’ll quote many others.


    Dr. Toni Grant suggests in her book Being a Woman:

    At its inception, the feminist movement, accompanied by the sexual revolution, made a series of enticing, exciting promises to women. These promises sounded good, so good that many women deserted their men and their children or rejected the entire notion of marriage and family, in pursuit of “themselves” and a career. These pursuits, which emphasized self-sufficiency and individualism, were supposed to enhance a woman’s quality of life and improve her options, as well as her relations with men. Now, a decade or so later, women have had to face the fact that, in many ways, feminism and liberation made promises that could not be delivered.

    Angelina Stanford, of Circe:

    Women followed the path recommended by the feminist leadership: they attended college, got advanced degrees, and postponed marriage and family until after they were well established in their careers. There is plenty of time for children, they were reassured.

    Slowly, women who once felt liberated by such rhetoric began to feel betrayed. Believing the lie of feminism, they learned through much pain, that certain differences between men and women are a biological fact, not a social construct. And the consequences of ignoring this reality have brought suffering to the lives of women.

    June Fuentes, in Feminism Exposed:

    I know that growing up I was exposed to a barrage feminism in schools, books, television, magazines, movies, music, peers, billboards, role models, etc. It was rampant and everywhere in culture (much like brainwashing) and still is today.

    And the feminist icons?

    In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA´s Cord Meyers to direct an “informal group of activists” called the “Independent Research Service.” This was part of Meyer´s “Congress for Cultural Freedom,” which created magazines like “Encounter” and “Partisan Review” to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots.

    One of Steinem´s CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960´s, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women´s lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971.

    Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970´s by a radical feminist group called “Red Stockings.” In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in “Feminist Revolution.” Nevertheless the story appeared in the “Village Voice” on May 21, 1979.

    [This is part of an upcoming post]

    Feminism is not only a lie, but it is a contrived lie with a political agenda. That is why it must be opposed, especially by women.


    Now I’ve never quoted men before on the issue but let’s start. This by Robert Scheaffer: The Noble Lie:

    Various feminists proclaim that women are ‘under siege’, that a monstrous social bias against them, if not a virtual war, is going on, that women have little respect or power (Steinem, Faludi, Tavris, etc.) Yet the notion of the American woman as a powerless “victim” is one of the most absurd notions ever foisted upon anyone.

    American women live, on average, seven years longer than men. They control 86 % of all personal wealth [PARADE Magazine, May 27, 1990], and make up 55% of current college graduates.

    Women cast 54% of the votes in Presidential elections, so they can hardly claim to be left out of the political decision-making process! They win almost automatically in child custody disputes.

    Women suffer only 6% of the work-related fatalities (the other 94% are suffered by men).

    Women are the victim of only about 35% of violent crimes, and only about 25% of all murders, yet because of our society’s exaggerated concern and respect for them, special legislation has been passed to punish “violence against women” as if it were a more heinous crime than “violence against men”. (Feminists claim to want “equality”, and this is an example of what “equality” means to them, i.e., preferential treatment to address their concerns).

    Two out of every three dollars spent on health care is spent on women, and even if you don’t count pregnancy-related care, women still receive more medical care than men – yet feminists still holler that womens health is being “neglected”, and far too many of us credulously believe them.

    Of the 25 worst jobs, as ranked by the Jobs Related Almanac based on a combination of salary, stress, security, and physical demands, 24 of them are predominantly, if not almost entirely, male, which might explain why men commit over 80% of all suicides.

    And collated by that author:

    As Christina Hoff Sommers shows, the famous “Rule of Thumb” for Wife Beating is really just a feminist lie. Laura Flanders of a group calling itself “FAIR” (which played a major role in promoting the “Superbowl Battering” hoax) made a big stink, accused Sommers of misrepresenting facts. Read Sommers’devastating reply to Flanders. (To this day, Politically Correct feminists still try to use Flanders’ accusations to bash Sommers in attempting to presuade people they believe to be naieve, even though they know the charges aren’t true. If you show them that you’ve read Sommers’ refutation of the charges, they’ll quickly shut up, or change the subject.)

    Feminists, bolstered by oceans of phony statistics, are now trying to seize Valentine’s Day (a day traditionally for celebrating good relations between the sexes) and re-define it as V-Day, a day to protest supposed systemic patriarchal violence against women. (Feminists always have had a big problem dealing with heterosexuality.) Fortunately, Christina Hoff Sommers has shown how phony their male-bashing claims are. (It might be a good idea to check out V-day’s list of sponsors and boycott them.)

    Every Seven Seconds, a Feminist tells a Lie about Domestic Violence. Noted researcher Richard J. Gelles tries to set the record straight.

    A wonderful expose’ of how feminists have sabotaged and hijacked the fight against Domestic Violence, turning it into a weapon for use in their war against men, is found in “Prone to Violence” by Erin Pizzey, who founded the first Domestic Violence shelter in the U.K.

    Feminists can only get away with claiming that “domestic violence” equals “men beating up women” because people are unaware of the massive documentation of female-instigated domestic violence.

    Facts refuting feminist propaganda on Family Violence by Family Resources and Research.

    I have about 30 more pages. More at another time.

  23. Amfortas
    October 4, 2012 at 16:48

    Moggsy, I am pretty sure that like most women I know you are likely to be a fine lunch companion. But like most women I know, facts just do not seem to change your mind.

    But ever the optimist and patient fellow, I give you two more references and a quote or two.

    “It’s a complex argument but we DO get more women aggressing against male partners than men against female partners,” said Dr George. “The view is that women are acting in self-defence but that is NOT true – 50 per cent of those who initiate aggression are women. This sends a dangerous message to men because we are saying they are not going to get any legal redress so their option instead is to hit back.”

    How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners.

  24. October 4, 2012 at 23:11

    How interesting James that you allowed another persons off topic comment to continue here when you deleted mine on a different thread which was in response the same post where comments were not available *sighs*

    Now to follow on from the original post, hoping it is not off topic now as you directed me here to post any further comments…

    The definition of a Feminazi (the label you keep doling out to most of your female commenters) is:

    an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women

    A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren’t necessary.

    How does that apply to ladies who are married and cherish their husbands and in some cases their kids? And how does that apply to ladies who love and enjoy the company of men?

    Those are the ladies that comment on your blog.

    For some reason you find it acceptable to call them names and make out they are something other than they are.

  25. October 5, 2012 at 01:19

    How interesting James that you allowed another persons off topic comment to continue here when you deleted mine on a different thread which was in response the same post where comments were not available *sighs*

    That shows you don’t read what I write, Cherie. I’ve already explained what happened in comments and acknowledged an error was made, even said sorry but you ignored that because you wanted to make your point. That’s the level of debate we’re at. Here it is again from above:

    Oops – this was my fault. I transferred the comment from Amfortas but forgot to delete it here. It’s particularly unfortunate on my part as I deleted one comment on the Saturn post by haiku, citing being off topic.

    She might well look at this here, on the Jamie Oliver thread and say it was unjust. Yes, in the light of my memory loss, it was. Sorry. Now Moggsy’s responded, I can’t very well delete the Amfortas comment here so I’ve made a real mess of this.

    Not to worry. Hopefully we’ll survive. Memory’s getting bad. Too many things going on concurrently.

    Now, about feminazis, I was discussing [with a woman] yesterday how that word produces more fury than any of the actual arguments or even my heated manner. It’s that word which produces the reaction.

    Why? Rush Limbaugh might have originated it but I have no truck with him and you don’t see him quoted elsewhere on this blog. If you did, you might have a case on him.

    I put my own definition which was that a nazi was someone who tried to destroy the society by means of a campaign of lies and the channel was the discrimination against one sector within the society.

    Fits the feminists to a T. What a laugh “positive” discrimination is – how brainwashed does a person have to be to accept it? Positive to whom? That a movement could ever think discrimination of any kind was acceptable flies in the face of all they say.

    They are hypocrites and they have been proven by the wealth of material even within these comments threads, to have been liars of the first water. Feminazi is a most appropriate term.

    As for the original post, for feminazis to commemorate Jill’s death by a Slut Walk to “reclaim the night” – well any person of decency knows what to think of that.

    Cherie, it surprises me that you’ve made no attempt to take this onboard but continue to simply fight back. Not learn but fight back, finding arguments where there are no substantive counterarguments – only emotive reactions such as “the ladies who comment on your blog”.

    All that material which has been presented to readers has nothing to do with ladies commenting on a blog – it is evidence of a lie by other people, something completely different.

    Why are you personalizing this? There was no personal attack on you, nor on Moggsy – you look at the chronology of the thing. It was about feminazis. Now you claim you’re not of the left, therefore you cannot be one of those. Therefore it’s not speaking of you.

    Suzie though was a fully paid up member of that group called feminazis.

    Yet you come in with personal attacks on me. Very interesting logic. How many times, Cherie, have I written that this issue is not James thinks this or that? How many times?

    And yet you still wade in and attempt to personalize it as you and me. Dispassionate readers know it’s nothing to do with you personally or Moggsy personally – there is no attack by me on you, so why should the reverse be true?

    The bottom line at the end, which was the purpose of the exercise, was to show that, as Bezmenov and Svali said, you can present all the evidence in the world but people who are so hardwired they can’t give up their narrative – won’t, despite it having been shown to be entirely unsustainable.

    I still have so many articles by women on this matter but I suspect I could supply the whole extant literature o it and it still would not make the slightest effect, as you’re not prepared to allow ANYTHING to be conceded.

    And readers are free to see all this and evaluate all which has been claimed and counterclaimed [without the slightest consideration of the evidence] and make up their own minds.

    Your quoting of Limbaugh is hitting back, it is not taking anything onboard and saying: “Well maybe that’s so but …” It is actually zero consideration of the evidence presented in the posts and comments and it certainly doesn’t address those points, as Amfortas points out.

    Consider again the links just above here [without the links below]:

    As Christina Hoff Sommers shows, the famous “Rule of Thumb” for Wife Beating is really just a feminist lie. Laura Flanders of a group calling itself “FAIR” (which played a major role in promoting the “Superbowl Battering” hoax) made a big stink, accused Sommers of misrepresenting facts. Read Sommers’devastating reply to Flanders. (To this day, Politically Correct feminists still try to use Flanders’ accusations to bash Sommers in attempting to presuade people they believe to be naieve, even though they know the charges aren’t true.

    Now nowhere do I see a dispassionate analysis of Sommers’ arguments. Nowhere do I see an analysis of the domestic violence figures. Nowhere do I see an analysis of the ten lies feminists tell or of Steinem’s antecedents.

    Why don’t we see any evidence based analysis? Why do we see only attempts to fight back with something which ignores all that?

    The answer is that it can’t be answered. Whilst I pile evidence after evidence on, while Amfortas does, in return all we get are personal attacks – first from Suzie, questioning my domestic situation without the slightest knowledge of that and then, unwisely, by both you ladies who decided to weigh in without any evidence and personalize it. Why?

    Readers can answer these questions for themselves. That’s why these things need to be laid out in black and white, so that there is no question who said what – it’s all there before the reader.

    My manner has been hostile, yes but it is not hostile towards Moggsy or you. Why would it be? You’re friends. What have either of you done wrong but continue to grace this humble blog with your esteemed presence?

    The ire has been for the lying, hypocritical feminists and shall continue to be because they have blighted women and by extension, society, marriage, family – all of it. They have been the vehicle of the very people you yourself concede are trying to enslave us – from the banksters to the other PTB. The feminists were their guys – look at the Steinem antecedents again and her CIA connections.

    You see, I’m attacking these. You’re not looking at those but are being hurt my my attitude to you personally. It’s like in a war if I shoot at the enemy and you, standing beside me, get hit by the empty shell ejected from the gun.

    There was no discussion of you personally there whatever and yet you’ve taken umbrage. Whatever for? This is someone else’s war, Cherie – against the feminazis. Whatever has that to do with you-me?

    Perhaps you’ll call this patronizing which it’s certainly not intended to be. If I’m in the middle of going for the jugular on them, how can I be soft and fluffy two seconds later? On another post I can be soft and fluffy, with the mind realigned for that post.

    Don’t know if you can see any of this.

  26. Moggsy
    October 5, 2012 at 10:45

    James/Amfortas, I absolutely don’t know why I continue to bother with, what I am coming to see as maybe even deliberate misinterpretation of most anything I say…

    So my final points…

    You want links and pretend not having lots of them invalidate self evident points to allow you to misinterpret arguments or sideline them? Fine! I think I come to expect that.

    Have a link:

    These figures prove my previous points absolutely.

    Looking at UK figures for 2010 for people in custody (remand and custodial sentence) for all violent offences.

    The total for males was 19, 188 and for females 917. The numbers are clear over 95% of the offenders were male, less than 5% female. It is simple enough to see. Around 21 violent males for every single violent female.

    When it comes to sexual offenders it is even more stark. The total for males was 9,727 and females just 95. Over 99% of the offenders were male. Over 102 male offenders for every single female one.

    Now the adult population of the UK is estimated
    to be around 50, 893,398.

    That makes the proportion of British adults violent enough to end up in custody around 0.04% of the population, or to put it another way, Just one violent offender for every 2.5K of the population.

    The proportion of sexual offenders around 0.02%. One for every 5.2K of the population. Obviously those who end up in custody are at the extreme end of a “Violent” behaviour range and there are sex crimes where people don’t get caught, But the numbers still speak for themselves and prove my points nicely anyway.

    To remind you of my main points “I do think female initiated violence is a tiny fraction of male initiated violence, ” and “They say that 90% of crime is perpetrated by a fairly tiny proportion of the population.”

    Here is evidence. Are _you_ “hardwired” and unable to give up _your_ “narrative”. I am sure you will find a way of ignoring this but… Hey! Whateverrrr.I tried.

  27. October 5, 2012 at 13:00

    These figures prove my previous points absolutely.

    No they don’t, not in the least. They are the massaged figures put out by the UK government – we said Independent figures, Moggsy, not the pap put up by the govt to prove its point.

    I told you that further up in the comments – don’t use feminazi figures or govt because they are heavily slewed – there’s been much in the press about that.

    You need Independent Figures.

    Try with some proper figures. You’re determined to ignore your sisters, aren’t you? 😉

    General massaging:

    On domestic violence:

    It is true, as crime statistics indicate, that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. However, such statistics overstate the disparity because an abused woman is many times more likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.

    In the US:

    The new Justice Department numbers show that ALL violence is responsible for about 3% of women’s INJURY-RELATED visits to emergency rooms, and domestic violence for about 1%. Since fewer than a third of women’s emergency-room visits are injury-related, this means that domestic violence accounts for fewer than 0.3% of these visits. While it is possible that some domestic violence cases were not identified in the study, it is noteworthy that its estimates include not only positively established but probable cases of violence from injuries.

    And finally, here it is, Moggsy:

    “For years, claims about the horrific scope of violence against women have been used by the ideologues to portray American society as a violent patriarchy in which women are constantly under assault by male terrorism, and the greatest threat to women is the men in their lives,” said Cathy Young, vice-president of the Women’s Freedom Network. “The Justice Department numbers show what critics of gender-war feminism have been saying for some time: the numbers have been exaggerated to serve an ideological agenda and promote policies that create a virtual presumption of guilt in domestic abuse cases. Domestic violence, and the level of violence in our society in general, needs to be addressed. But there is no need to distort the truth or to foster division between the sexes.”

    I’m happy to accept a woman’s word on this, as distinct from a feminazi.

    As real women are saying, the figures are vastly overstated to pursue the feminists agenda. One day you might wake up and accept what women are saying on this but I’m not holding my breath. You’ll continue ignoring it and trying to counter, counter, counter rather than once, just for once, accepting the facts.

  28. Moggsy
    October 5, 2012 at 13:17

    LOL. I knew it! Maybe you really are hardwired?

    Ask for stats, you get the official stats, that, even if they are wrong by a factor of 10 would still prove my points.

    Don’t worry about replying tho, I figure I am just being mocked. And that would show your attitude nicely all on its’ own.

    I best keep my own council on how impressed I am with your logic and wit. Bye.

  29. October 5, 2012 at 13:33

    You see – this is not an argument with two sides. There are facts and that’s it. What you’ve done is gone back to feminazi statistics to provide a feminazi justification.

    You have to go independent to be heeded on it. Now when you provide those, then readers will heed them. All manner of trying to project back on me what I’ve challenged you to do comes to nothing.

    Let’s see your independent stats, not issued by feminist thinktanks or govt.


    While that’s going on, a couple of anecdotal thingies about domestic violence. There are abusers and victims. I don’t like using the word victim for myself as I always saw being a punching and kicking bag for her as one of my functions to help her get rid of all that steam. I think she expected that after all that, with her being calm again, that I’d be ready to go out and do whatever it was we were going to do.

    The good aspect was that there were no sneaky attacks, e.g. the knife behind the door etc. – it was instant and violent in female terms – just flailing arms and boots. Once I went out and while I was away, she trashed the flat but only in a way which would take about twenty minutes to put back again – nothing torn or broken but carefully placed in a “thrown-looking way”.

    She phoned three days later and was quiet on the other end. I said to get over here as I’d missed her. Wrong thing to do of course but I was more interested in her arms again. And let’s face it, and I’m sure Moggsy would agree – I can be annoying at times. I know that’s hard for readers to understand, me being such a lamb ‘n all.

    Once she broke my car antenna and the gear shift. Now that one did annoy me and I saw the gleam in the eye as she saw it had hurt. You don’t touch my car or boat. There was only one thing for it, bear hug her and kiss her to death until she started laughing.

    I understand that some might be horrified by that behaviour but to me it was more healthy to get all those emotions out than bottle them up. I took it out on the iron at the gym mainly but it always, by definition, beat me so that didn’t do a lot.

    I still wouldn’t have swapped her for anyone as everything had a reason, in her terms and I could half see that. She did get under the guard once with her words and as I frothed at the mouth, she stood ten feet away and clapped to herself. Fifteen minutes later, we were in the cafe as if it had never happened.

    Suzie mentioned warm loving relationships – wonder if that fell under that heading. LOL.


    Now, wonder how Moggsy’s doing with those stats.

  30. Amfortas
    October 5, 2012 at 14:31

    Your Goverment stats, Moggsy, I can accept at face value, and not argue with them per se. However, our justice system systematically fails to acknowledge female violence against men. Also, where women are arraigned on charges of violence the ‘justice’ system bends over backwards to be lenient – even to the point of wanting and planning to close down women’s prisons altogether. Which was largely my point.

    Also many of the men in prison are there, rightly to my mind (I prefer thugs to be in jail) for far more than just the violence you imagine. Many, of course, have been found ‘guilty’ on false accusation, which is yet another matter to the men’s arguement. Many others have violence as defined by feminists in power to include such atrocities as ’emotional’ and ‘financial’ violence (Ie: he would not give her his money). Put those issues into the pot and what do the stats then show?

    Men do not report violence against them by women because a) they are scorned when they do, b) they are disbelieved, c) they are told that a woman is too ‘weak’ to harm them, d) the courts do not want to deal with violent women e) no-one has the guts to arrest and jail the violent women especially when they have young children. Not surprising then that our jails have a paucity of ladies living in them.

    There was once a strong cry by women that they were not taken seriously by the legal system and could not get equal legal redress. Men in general and those in ‘power’ in particular, rushed to their aid and made thengs easier and more convenient for women. The pendulum has swung the other way now, and far further. What men ( I ) would like is to see otherwise fine ladies like yourself stand up for equal justice for men, just as I stood up for equal justice for women.

  31. chrysalis
    October 5, 2012 at 16:25

    Wow, this has really become more complex than necessary.

    I don’t think anyone’s arguing that there isn’t female violence against men and that it’s underreported.

    We’re off point. The original point was that Jill Meagher “should’ve known better” than to walk somewhere by herself late at night, or the rape/murder wouldn’t have happened.

    I hope you are not implying that this means Jill Meagher then deserved being raped and murdered because she did?

    I guess by that same philosophy, you could say that since Meredith Kutcher already had suspicions about Amanda Knox’s jealousy and therefore should’ve stayed away from her and therefore SHE deserved it, then?

    Your mere need to make a gender distinction about human violence proves your personal bias, James.

    And you and Amfortas calling women names like “femnazi” and “mangina” are unnecessary and immature, because none of these women are doing the same to people on your side of the fence.

    By your own admission, you’ve created your own definition of “femnazi” and I have now developed MY own definition.

    It appears that actually a “femnazi” is anyone of the female persuasion who disagrees with James Higham 🙂

  32. October 5, 2012 at 19:12

    @James – my comment wasn’t meant to be personal I was trying to explain why others find the word offensive. That is why I gave the links which show the commonly accepted meaning of the word. To illustrate why your commenters get offended when you call them that name.

    I do read what you write but I missed the comment in this thread that explained the extra bit about the comment mix up, there was a lot to wade through and it was late so all I can say is Ooops! Sorry 🙂

  33. tomsmith
    October 6, 2012 at 02:12

    I don’t understand the logic of this argument.

    Women in general are wrong to try and walk home alone at night because they usually aren’t as good at fighting as the average man and so might well end up getting raped and murdered by a violent male who watches porn all day and lives on benefits. Feminists lie when they say that women can often walk home alone safely and by encouraging women to be less reliant on the constant protection of males. Somehow women are at fault (for believing feminist lies?) when they judge the safety of a walk home poorly and someone rapes and/or murders them. Check

    Does this also apply to all men who are weaker and less good at defending themselves than the most vicious and violent male in town? Should older and weaker men make sure they have a young and vigorous companion whenever they venture outside? Are rich men at fault for walking alone and getting mugged because they present too much of a tempting target for feral and violent youth? Are drunk men bringing it on themselves when someone beats them up outside the pub?

    People sometimes make bad decisions it is true but I don’t see why this kind of argument should apply uniquely to women and why it should be so black and white. Some women are safer walking home than some men in some situations. Some women are better at defending themselves than some men. The blame for crime lies with criminals, not with victims, poor judgement or not.

  34. October 6, 2012 at 11:01

    To Tom and Chrysalis both – no, I’m certainly not a subscriber to the “she deserved it” line. Not in the least. No one, especially an innocent like Jill Meagher, deserves what happened. In a nation where capital punishment still operated, the man would be executed.

    What I was saying was that she was lulled into a false sense of security because of a narrative which has been spun to women for so long and younger women have grown up with it – this is why Lara Logan experienced what she did in Egypt.

    That narrative is unrealistic – it does not reflect how the world is. Hence such women become victims of crimes. That is an unfortunate spin-off of the feminist/socialist narrative but there are other, more insidious consequences which actually were intended and there’s a post coming up about good and intentional evil.

    I’d like to move the discussion more to good and evil than Jill Meagher and feminism per se. Think we’ve done the feminist bit to death.

  35. Amfortas
    October 6, 2012 at 12:02

    My apologies to all for including these issues here. I did want them moved but here they stay.

    I did not mention anything about Jill deserving anything. I certainly proffer NO EXCUSES for rape and murder. I have no idea how Jill was dressed or comported herself.

    If the use of ‘feminazi’ upsets some people, so be it. I have had to put up with being called a rapist.

    That said, let there be no excuses either for people who do not take the ordinary precautions in a difficult world and refuse to accept some responsibility for the consequences when they do not. I do not refer to Jill. I know little of the circumstances.

    When I go out, I lock my doors and windows. If I did not and an uncrupulous thief walked in a stole my stuff, my insurance company would NOT pay-out. The police would call me a damned fool. Even a feminist policeperson would. I carry an umbrella when rain is expected. I wear trousers when out. If I didn’t and my arse became rain-sodden, I would not blame the rain.

  36. Chrysalis
    October 6, 2012 at 14:28


    I didn’t say you said she deserved it, I asked if you/James meant that, but you clarified, thank you 🙂

    You said someone called you a rapist – did that happen here? Did I miss that between the two threads?

    If someone called you that and it’s not true, here or real life, I apologize – not just on behalf of women, but on behalf of HUMANITY, that someone called you a name or labeled you with anything that isn’t fair or true.

    As for your rain-soaked metaphor, you’ve leaving something out – rain doesn’t have a choice to fall on the just, rapists and murderers do.

    And having said that, and also with regards to James’ hint at a next post regarding intentional good and evil – sometimes rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45)

    “…and deserves got nothing to do with it.” (Clint Eastwood, “The Unforgiven” 😉

  37. Amfortas
    October 6, 2012 at 17:06

    Chrysalis, I appreciate the sentiment but as you have not called me a rapist you cannot apologise with any authenticity. Nor can you apologise on behalf of ‘women’, nor ‘humanity’.

    Whilst your sentiment may appear to mark you out as a ‘nice’ person, it is nevertheless a very common ploy on the part of feminists to claim to speak for 50% of the popluation with vaginas, many of whom do not share your points of view. You go much further and include infants and the aged of both sexes.

    I have written and spoken to many men in the Men’s movement trying to impress upon them that it is essential that they have two particular qualities before entering the fray. Authenticity is one. Integrity the other. Other qualities are also needed but those two are essential.

    Please be authentic.

    Please have Integrity.

    You are no doubt a nice women and as with almost any feminist I have met, I would happily sit and have a cup of tea with you and chat. But that is a reflection on me. I am a nice chap. But I am not about to apologise on behalf of rapists for their crimes against women and ‘humanity’, and I do not want you to have to try to apologise on behalf of the bog-standard feminists who can read their ‘senior’ colleages’ writings that ‘All Men are Rapists’ and nod their heads in agreement. I would much rather you stood up and denounced them as bigots, and support the human rights that those of us in the MRM support – which includes equality between the genders before the law.

  38. Chrysalis
    October 6, 2012 at 18:39


    Actually…I’ve been unfairly accused and labeled myself, so I know what that’s like; those were my thoughts when I wrote that comment to you.

    I’m sorry you didn’t find my apology for how you’ve been labeled (by women?) as sincere and feel the need to label me as a feminist as response.

    I’m not sure why you’re calling me a feminist – so what do you call Tom, who made essentially the same point?

    And I’m sorry you are asking me to have integrity, as if I don’t 🙁

    Your prickly approach makes it difficult for others to try to find common ground with you, but I tried? If I was truly a feminist, I wouldn’t bother or care with your perspective at all, being a man.

    So if I’m guarded, please understand that your approach might have something to do with it – could you perhaps take a look (and some responsibility) for that possibility?

    No, I wasn’t personally responsible for how poorly you’ve been obviously been treated by women, but I can empathize with being labeled unfairly.

    But it seems to me, since you just labeled ME, right after my apology for your being labeled by women, you’d rather argue with them than find common ground with them – but perhaps, not knowing you, that assessment is unfair.

    God’s Peace 🙂

  39. October 6, 2012 at 21:35

    Right, probably time to draw a line under this now. I don’t think anyone has been denied a say. Thanks one and all for the participation.

Comments are closed.