High life
Femail
Takt
New York I have been getting more hate mail than the police are getting rocks thrown at them in Brixton. And, like the police, I certainly don't deserve it. About two months ago, my friend Emmett Tyrrell, who is the editor of the American Spectator, asked me to write a treatise on ugliness. A treatise on ugly women, or what makes a woman ugly, to be exact. I thought it was an interesting subject so I sat down and did my homework. I called upon my mentor, Professor John Aspinall, and asked him to expound upon the fairer, or weaker, sex, as the case may be. I also added some ideas of my own and sent the piece in. It was published last month and now all hell has broken loose. In essence, what I wrote was this: It is an accepted fact that true beauty is a combination of body and spirit. Just as true is the fact that a woman lacking femininity cannot possibly be considered beautiful in the true and classical sense of the word. In fact, a good figure and regular features detract from, rather than enhance, the appearance of a woman lacking femininity. How does one define femininity? Easy. A feminine woman possesses qualities which make her as different from man psychologically as she is physically. That is, she is passive, cunning, patient, understanding, motherly, monogamous, etc. Furthermore, a feminine woman defines herself almost exclusively by her relationshipto a man ,and is sculpted accordingly. Four hundred million years of field experiments have proved that the female form is different from the male form for the above reasons.
I have already written in this column how the male macaque, the human's closest relation, is bigger than his female counterpart, stronger, and the one who responds to outside dangers, or decides whether to move to different breeding grounds, while the female tends her young, but remains unconcerned while the male stalks the enemy. A woman's trust consolidates the male's dominance. Without it, the male tends to lose his masculinity. One does not have to be an anthropologist or a scientist to see that this makes sense. The state and the feminists have usurped the male role. All we are good for these days is to pick up the bills.
So, it should be the men who are furious, but it's the women who are angry and getting away with it. Worse, they believe that in what they call a free society, free speech does not include the right to counter what others have the freedom to say. Just because I dared to point out, referring to Germaine Greer's book about female painters who are not famous, that they are not famous because they were not good enough, and because on a television show I insisted that if there ever had been a female Titian or Degas nobody could have kept them unknown for too long, the interviewer tried to insult me. Of my various correspondents, the best was Jean Dowell, the athletics director of an Ohio university. She wrote and challenged me to come to Ohio, take her out to dinner and then fight. (I declined: these liberated women hit below the belt.) The head of the National Organisation for Women, Chicago chapter, wrote that I was the ugliest ci.f the ugly, and that I would be enshrined In their Pig Hall of Fame (I was flattered). The most pathetic letter was from Ana Hengsteenberg, an associate editor of Fortune magazine. She wrote and cancelled her subscription to the American Spectator because the editor had dared to publish a view which differed from hers. So I rang every shipowner and businessman I knoW. in America and asked them to stop reachng Fortune, because of the narrow-mindedness of its editors.
Previous page
