Marchessini Blog & Forum

Responsibilities of Women

I was interested in a recent article in The Times by Alice Thomson (“We’ve only turned a page in the war on sexism”). I am sure that her views are sincere, but I must point out, however, that some of her assertions are in conflict with reality. One of the most important laws of human life is that one can do what one wants, as long as one is prepared to accept the consequences. But, if I understand Miss Thomson correctly, she is suggesting that women should be able to behave irresponsibly, without any painful consequences. This is contrary to human experience.

For example, she says that women should be able to wear what they like. Of course, they can wear what they like, but they cannot avoid the consequences of their attire. Since time immemorial, women (and men) have dressed to indicate their rank and their intentions. If a woman today deliberately dresses in a vulgar, sexy way, the only conclusion one can draw is that she wishes to attract men. There is no other reason for dressing like that. So she is either a tart, or a cock teaser. Suppose three women walk into a pub; one is conventionally dressed, the second is wearing a skirt up to her crotch, and the third is topless and wearing only a pair of pants. Do you think the men in the pub would have the same reaction to all three women? And would refrain from touching them?

Miss Thomson also mentions drink. Of course, women are free to drink if they wish to, but there are unpleasant consequences to drinking, not only for women, but also for men. Since time immemorial, young men often tried to get girls a little tipsy, to make them more amorous. Respectable girls resisted this, knowing that it could be dangerous. Today, women seem to feel they must drink in order to be like men. In previous generations, you rarely saw a woman drunk in public. Today you see many. By drinking, they are making themselves targets for men, which suggest that they are willing. Otherwise, why get drunk?

Miss Thomson alleges that “harassment” is a part of daily life for British girls. I would suggest, with respect, that she is being somewhat inconsistent. In the past, men were brought up to think that women were fragile little flowers, and that it was their duty to protect them, and look after them. But today, women are pretending that they are the same as men, and can do the same things as men. There is no longer any reason to protect them, or to look after them. If men and women are the same, how can there be “sexual harassment”? Men do not complain of sexual harassment – why should women? Is that logical? She also mentions that many girls send naked pictures of themselves to men. One cannot be “pressurised” to do that. You either choose to do it, or you do not. What opinion will young men have about girls who send them nude pictures of themselves? If girls do this, how can they complain about “sexual harassment”.

Finally, Miss Thomson mentions that women who work should not have guilty feelings about it. One’s feelings are, of course, a personal matter. But it is a fact that women who work spend very little time with their children, so it is natural for them to feel guilty. Women are always free to do what they like, but they must accept the consequences. They cannot have it both ways.


The Evans Case

There was an article recently in The Times by Libby Purves (Without the rule of law we will all be losers – 11th January 2015) about the Ched Evans case. As I happen to be a lawyer, I would comment on this case from a strictly legal point of view. The facts are slightly different from the ones mentioned by Miss Purves. It seems that Evans, his sister, his brother-in-law, and a football friend, Clayton McDonald, had gone out on the town. At a certain point, McDonald said that he felt tired, and was going back to the hotel. He then hailed a cab, but before he could get in, a girl he had never seen before, asked him which way he was going, and could she get a lift from him. Naturally, he agreed. This girl was, of course, the alleged victim. Now, at that point, having entered a taxi with a strange man in the middle of the night, and both of them drunk, the girl had given up responsibility for her behaviour, and could no longer be “raped” by the man in question. McDonald took her to his hotel, to which she agreed; he took her up to his room, to which she agreed; and then he made love to her, to which she also agreed. No rape took place.

At this point, the second part of the story begins. McDonald rang Evans, told him he had a girl in his room, and suggested he come over. It is at this point that the two stories diverge. Evans said that when he arrived, he found a girl in bed, with very little in the way of clothing on, who had just allowed his friend to make love to her. So he asked her if he “could have a go”. Not very gentlemanly, but certainly not rape. And, he claims, she agreed. Her version is that when she woke up in the morning, she could not remember anything, and wondered where her clothes were. Now, these two different versions are not contradictory. It is perfectly possible that she said ‘yes’ to Evans, and could not remember anything in the morning. Obviously, everybody had had a lot to drink. The point is, whichever version you accept, there could not be any rape, because the absolute indispensible requirement for rape is that a woman be “unwilling”. Well, in his version, she was “not unwilling”, nor in her version was she “unwilling”. If she could not remember what happened, then she could certainly have agreed for him to make love to her.

That is why the court decision was unsound. The jury did not like the behaviour of these two footballers, and wanted to punish them. They could not punish McDonald, because it was so clear that the girl had been willing, so they punished Evans, who was no more guilty than McDonald. Ungentlemanly behaviour is not rape. Rape has been a very serious offence since the beginning of time. It was the last offence for which there was a death sentence in the UK (apart from murder), and it still is punishable by many years in jail. Regardless of whether they were, or were not, “bad boys”, they were not rapists.

That is why Evans has appealed, and why he does not apologise, because in his view he did not do anything against the law. In the context of the facts in the case, the reaction of the football clubs is absurd. Even convicts who have actually committed rape can usually go back to their former occupations. Why not football, which is not exactly a gentlemanly occupation?

And as for being a role model, I would suggest that 99.9% of the country had never heard of Ched Evans before this case.


Not Predatory But Naughty

With reference to a recent letter in The Times by Janice Turner, entitled ‘Let’s explode the myth of the predatory schoolgirl’, she is quite right when she states that there are not many “predatory” schoolgirls, but there are many “naughty” schoolgirls. In the Rotherham scandal recently, the girls involved were 13, 14 or 15 years old. They had skipped school, wandered about the streets, allowed strangers to pick them up (men who were twice their age), accepted cigarettes and alcohol from them, and rode in their cars. They, therefore, could not expect the men they met to behave like gentlemen. Of course, the behaviour of the Pakistanis was disgusting, but, by their standards, and by the standards of most of the world, these girls were tarts.

Miss Turner states that “decent men” resist temptation. Whatever her definition of a decent man is, the fact is that when a girl shows that she is available, very few men will resist. That is why, since time immemorial, women have been brought up everywhere in the world to protect themselves from men, and not to encourage them.


Homosexual Confusion

A recent correspondent in the Daily Telegraph considers it a “disgrace” that the Church of England can claim exemption from carrying out same-sex marriages. Perhaps he is not aware that only last summer, the Archbishop of Canterbury stated that homosexuality has always been a sin, and continues to be a sin, in the Anglican Church.



With reference to a recent column in The Times by David Aaronovitch, the interesting thing is that despite the volumes of press comment that there has been about “Charlie”, no one has actually stated what the furore is all about. What it is about is blasphemy.

In this country, blasphemy was a crime for thousands of years, and was only repealed as a crime seven years ago. As long as blasphemy is a crime, there can be no problem about insulting religion.

But now that blasphemy is no longer a crime, there is a gap between free speech and insults. Of course, in this country, blasphemy only referred to Christianity. In Europe, there has never been a blasphemy laws against the Moslem religion. Indeed, it is unheard of for Moslems to object to statements made in the newspapers of other countries. That comes from giving them too much money, and too much power.


Fighting Women

There is an interesting letter in yesterday’s Times by a man called Tim Cain, who was an infantry officer for 28 years. He says that he is surprised that the MOD is considering forcing the army to accept women in the Infantry, at a time of shrinking budgets. To provide appropriate extra facilities for the relatively tiny numbers of women involved would be a waste of scarce resources.

An even more interesting letter is from Colonel Finlay Maclaren, who says that for three years he served on the board responsible for assessing potential officers at Sandhurst. He once had three exceptionally athletic female candidates, who all jumped at the chance to attempt the more demanding male obstacle course. Of the eight obstacles, two female candidates managed to complete three, and the other one, only one. In short, none came close to meeting the male standard.

The difference in physical strength between the sexes is significant and few females are up to the present infantry standard necessary to serve on the front line. If these standards are lowered in order to meet female quotas, military effectiveness will be severely reduced. This happened of course with the police, who used to have standards of size, weight and strength in order to qualify. When they decided to allow women to become policemen, these standards had to be scrapped, of course, because women do not meet them.


The Truth Is Never Racist

There is a continual attack on the police, both in the United States and in the UK, for being “racist” and “brutal” towards black people. These attitudes are misguided. In the United States, according to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are ten times more likely to be murdered than whites. Blacks are just 13% of the population of the US, but they are responsible for the majority of all murders in the US. Furthermore, more than 90% of black victims are killed by other blacks. Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do.

Many of these murders are never solved. In 2012, Chicago had 507 murders. Only 26% of them were solved. But the Left Wing and sociologists, although they are aware of these facts, do not even acknowledge them, let alone make them a focus. One of the Left Wing’s allegations is that black criminal behaviour is a response to “white racism”. How is it then that black crime rates were much lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, and there was plenty of racial discrimination? Yet, again, the views of the Left do not stand up to reality.


Are Women Killers?

With reference to a recent letter in The Times,Female soldiers and the killer instinct”, the fact that females lack the killer instinct, that they have much less physical courage than men, as well as much weaker bodies, are not “unsubstantiated claims”, but obvious facts. I am eighty years old, and I have spent my life with women in twenty countries. Most women get frightened if one raises one’s voice, let alone touches them. People must understand that the word “stereotypes” is used by Feminists to take the place of the phrase “normal women”. Nor are the armed forces meant to “reflect the society from which they come”. The armed forces are meant to contain the strongest and bravest people. Would Manchester United play women on their team in order to “reflect society”?

There are also several other points not mentioned in the letter. For example, when the Americans came back from Iraq, 15% of the women soldiers were pregnant, and the US Army had to arrange nurseries and care facilities for them. Is this what armies are meant to do? Then there is the question of sexual jealousy. As soon as there are women in the armed forces, the men will start fighting for them. Is this good for discipline in combat? And, in case of danger, soldiers are likely to protect their girlfriends, rather than their comrades. It really is not a good idea.




Domestic Gestapo

It is reported in the press that the Home Secretary will be announcing powers to allow the police to prosecute men who are guilty of “psychological and emotional abuse”.  I must say that I do not think that this has been carefully thought out.  Under the terms of the bill, a man could face up to fourteen years in prison.  It is important to remember that all the women have chosen their husbands or lovers.  If they find they do not like them, they can divorce the husband or leave the lover.  But to send them to jail is monstrous.  For those who are married, the wife made marriage vows to look after her husband for the rest of her life.  If she sends him to jail, those vows become lies.

Even more important, the government does not have the right to interfere in people’s private affairs.  We are meant to live in a country where there is personal freedom.  Furthermore, to try to decide who is right and who is wrong in a domestic squabble would be an administrative nightmare.

I would strongly urge the Home Secretary to rethink this matter.



There was a letter in the Daily Telegraph recently that contained some common fallacies about Fascism. In particular, it stated that the “Stalin regime was just as Fascist as Hitler’s”. In fact, neither Stalin nor Hitler were Fascists.

The Fascist Party was founded in 1919 by Mussolini, and its stated purpose was to fight Communism. So Stalin, by definition, could not be Fascist — he was the enemy of the Fascists. Similarly, the Nazis were not Fascists either — they were Socialists. Indeed, the word ‘Nazi’ comes from the capital letters of the party’s title, which was the National Socialist Party of Germany. Furthermore, the Nazis had no qualms allying themselves with the Communists when it suited them. All three governments were violent dictatorships, but only one was Fascist. To state that all violent dictatorships are Fascist is quite incorrect.

1 2 3 51 Page 1 of 51

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.