I received some good-natured criticism for a post that I wrote on Friday that described a woman as looking like Mr Ed. Apparently it is not all about aesthetic beauty, I shouldn’t judge a book by its cover and so on. Firstly I would like to establish my defence, I certainly don’t judge books by their covers and that is one of the reasons I am successful in the fields that I am. I am possessed of a reasonably broad vocabulary and I can assure you that I consulted it at length but the most accurate analogy was Mr Ed, in fact that was probably rather more complimentary than I had intended. If this had been a super model my opinion would have been the same but the analogy would have been different. The analogy was simply meant to allow the reader to understand the visual aspect of this book’s cover, the contents was even more distasteful.
Thinking about these discussions last night led me to realise that this is just another example of the difference between the sexes. I am not a great fan of the drive for sameness that goes under the name equality, to me it makes no sense. The European Commission of Morons, or some such pointless consumer of cash, has stated this week that they support a mandate that all companies have at least 40% of the non executive board made up of women, are they mad? Surely a company has to choose the people who fill these roles based on competence? Under these rules a brilliantly accomplished male must be overlooked for a flaky half wit in high heels if there is less than 40% females on the board, how can that be right? Apparently the reason for this biased make up of boards is a reluctance to employ women because they tend to take maternity breaks, that is not biased it is sensible! If I want to pay someone a small fortune to run my top-level multi-national I want them to stay at the job. We’ve all seen good companies share prices devastated by sudden departures it’s not good, I wouldn’t want to employ a blind pilot would I? and I wouldn’t want to entrust my company to somebody that has a legal right to disappear for 6 months, it makes no sense.
I digress, this was not where the post was aiming, I must have a blind pilot! When the do-gooders and liberal lunatics have finished enabling Kate Moss to get a job in a coal mine and making qualifications in beauty therapy the ‘equivalent’ of a maths degree do you think that they will stop? Of course not! Eventually they will level the field so that men get as much paternity leave as women get maternity, then there will come grandpaternity and grandmaternity, don’t believe me? they already get cards for grandparents day….. In the end we will all realise that Clacton was an early adopter with the majority of the population seeing children and work as mutually exclusive opposites.
But the challenge that they will really struggle with is sexy. Like Mr Ed on the train on Friday the male species is not designed to be sexy, we are genetically ill-equipped. Oh sure you can consider a man rugged, suave, well-groomed and doubtless a dozen other things but we don’t do sexy. Ladies don’t be deceived by those oily pictures that you put on Facebook, men don’t come in sexy, it’s just not what we are here for. Over generations we have developed facial treatments and make-up to accentuate certain lines, cover blemishes and provide the best facial appearance for ladies. Ladies have skin care regimes, it is in their DNA to maintain glowing looks. Now I know that there are some ‘men’ who also have skin care regimes but hey there also some men who still wear skin-tight jeans go figure. Seriously though even if a man carries out a strict skin care regime we are not designed to maintain anything more than rugged looks.
For those women that are doubting me now I would like to offer an example. Take a good look next time that you bathe or shower and consider the nicks and cuts from hair removal, we do that to our faces. Can you imagine if women had to scrape a razor blade over their face every couple of days? The cosmetic power houses would have developed a pill to cure that, it’s just not compatible with maintaining a glowing complexion. This is not a bad thing, I am not complaining, I am just making the observation. I heard something from a friend the other day that I filed for the other project, it was a comment that wearing that little black dress and high heels made her feel sexy. This is another example of our genetic predispositions, men are not physically capable of feeling sexy in tight-fitting clothes. The external mounting of a mans genitals means that when he ‘feels’ sexy everyone knows, hell it would ruin the lines of a little black dress!
I am sure that this is all very attractive to the opposite sex at some point but it is not sexy per se, like a baboon showing a purple arse men are designed for function over form. There is nothing in the design of the male form that is intended to be displayed as sexy, an artist designed the female form and they work bloody hard to maintain it. Women were designed in an Italian design house, men were designed in a workshop in Solihull , like a Transit van we are designed to get the job done, reliable, solid, but not much to look at. I for one am very interested in seeing how the Eurocrats will cope with this in their bid to end any differences in the world. I can see an attempt to make it illegal to attend a restaurant without dark glasses or perhaps a drive to increase tax on make-up?
Well that’s my thoughts, but before I leave you let me make something clear. I am not a proponent of this insanity, diversity is a great thing in my book. I don’t want subsidised, or any other, make-up and I don’t want women to lose their femininity. Keep up the good work ladies, don’t let the cargo pants brigade overrun you!
