John Howard defeated by female opponent with great legs

In response to the thread, “A theory of Viagra,” Michelle writes:

Judging by this photo of Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard conceding defeat to his rival Maxine McKew (former TV current affairs host), Johnny might need some pills pronto due to his olympic-level suppression:


Whether it’s intentional or not, I don’t know, as McKew is both smart and carefree. But, either way, it’s abuse of male physiology to invoke an involuntary urge if you have no intention of satisfying it.

LA replies:

She’s an attractive, stylish, confident woman, but she is using her female looks and body in exactly the way that makes it inappropriate for women to be in public life. This picture is prime evidence of the gyneocracy—the rule of women.

Thus I would disagree with you in that I don’t think that the issue raised here is primarily or exactly the issue we’ve been discussing in the “Viagra theory” thread, namely the way women dress that forces men to look away from them and thus weakens men sexually and spiritually. The issue here is the way women use their bodies and looks to assert their power over men in the political sphere. Women are already superior to men in the sexual sphere, that’s just a fact of life. So when women in politics use their sexual power in the manner of McKew, they are combining their equal political rights to men with their greater sexual power than men in order to give themselves greater political power than men. Thus the gyneocracy.

(Here’s another photo of the same scene from the front, with even more of McKew’s legs showing.)

LA continues:

I thank Michelle for sending the photo, as it perfectly complements the theme of the “Viagra theory” discussion. The two entries together suggest the harm done to the female nature and the male nature, to male-female relations, to society, and ultimately to law and liberty, that is brought about by women’s increasing empowerment.

- end of initial entry -

Bruce B. writes:

Quote from the story linked at bottom of entry.

“The front-on photograph shows Ms McKew sitting alongside Mr Howard and, while it does not display anything inappropriate, suggests she may not be wearing underwear.”

LA replies:

I read that in that story, but I don’t think there’s any basis to say that.

Bruce B. replies:

Agree, but that seems like a non-sequitur for anyone with a basic sense of propriety: “Does not display anything inappropriate” but “suggests she may not be wearing underwear.”

LA replies:

Good catch.

James P. writes:

Howard was not defeated by his opponent’s great legs, but by her appeal to non-white immigrants:

On November 24 McKew ousted Howard from the seat he had held for 33 years.

As the book reveals, it was due largely to a clinical targeting of Bennelong’s above-average number of non-English-speaking, foreign-born and predominantly Asian voters.

There is a lesson there for all the stupid open borders-loving Republicans: you are importing your own political doom.

Lisa writes:

You wrote:

“The issue here is the way women use their bodies and looks to assert their power over men in the political sphere. Women are already superior to men in the sexual sphere, that’s just a fact of life.”

How do you think women are superior to men in the sexual sphere? And what do you mean by superior?

LA replies:

They have more sexual power than men. Women are the source, the Queen Bee. Men circle around them. Men constantly want something. What do they want? The woman. It’s the woman who makes the choice. Man proposes, woman disposes.

Laura W. replies:

See? I told you women don’t understand. They’ve lost all confidence in the power of femininity. Feminism is the product of intense insecurity and self-loathing.

Laura writes:

Of course, women don’t see themselves as “superior in the sexual sphere” due to feminist propaganda, but that’s another story, already discussed previously.

You said a number of things in this discussion that really made me think. My comment that women have no choice to buy these clothes because of time constraints was shallow. They do have a choice. There are those simple blouses and skirts. But, they want to buy clothes that show their animal side because inside they have become mechanical and drone-like. I think the way men adopt Darwinian theories is similar. Men who spend their days in offices at their computers all day or shuffling papers are thrilled by these theories about the pure animal side of human nature. You know what I mean?

LA replies:

HA HA. Right. That’s really funny. To compensate for de-sexed, de-racinated, modern office life, women dress like whores, and men imagine themselve to be the heirs of mammoth hunters!

(Actually, mammoth hunters may be a little too advanced, a little too close to modern man to serve the male psychological need for identification with the primitive and the animalistic of which Laura speaks.)

Lisa writes:

Good explanation. Thanks.

December 6

Carol Iannone writes:

I feel the Maxine McKew thread perfectly supports my Viagra theory. Women flaunt their sexuality, emasculating men. But then women want sex too, and they want it when they want it, not necessarily when the potency rises in the male, which, we are led to believe by all the commercials, may unfortunately not be that often anymore. So the men must take Viagra or Levitra (get that name) in order to be ready for the queen bee when she wants it.

Rhona N. writes:

I work in a government law office and I have so many anecdotes about male/female behavior I wouldn’t know where to start. However, a couple come to mind.

My staff consists of young professionals just out of college. While most of the women dress very professionally, some do not. One in particular was a beautiful girl from Mississippi with a great body, especially very large breasts. She would always show them off to the extent that little was left to the imagination because she wore very tight sweaters. On one occasion, she was part of a group that was interviewing candidates for a new position on my staff. I remember how she complained to me later that during the interview the male interviewee was checking out “her boobs.” What did she expect? I think she was insulted because the man was not good looking. She might have had a different reaction if he were. Nevertheless, she continued to dress that way until she left the office for law school.

Another case involved a very masculine lesbian who heads the gay outreach team. My husband and I call her the “commissar.” She once reported a male who turned around to check out a woman as she walked down the office and had her back to him. In other words, the woman in question didn’t even know this was occurring, however, the lesbian saw the incident. The office actually took this seriously, although the male was eventually “acquitted” after the investigation. Interestingly, she made a very sexual comment to someone in the elevator, while I and several others were there. She said she was going to have a lot of fun at a women’s conference checking out all of the women. No one said a word and I am sorry to report that I didn’t either. Can you imagine what would have happened if a heterosexual male had done the same thing?

Things have become very confused in this environment and a lot of people have no idea how they should behave. But believe me, women can dress well without showing off their bodies. That is within their control.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 05, 2008 11:46 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):