pseudo swede blemishes the internet with her impure thoughts and so on.

torstaina, marraskuuta 25, 2004

On the Cards (or, three things to wet your pants in antici........pation thinking about!)

1. An exciting Liz-O-vation courtesy of Monsieur Fop who, with a bit of persuasion, is going to liz-O-vate us within an inch of our fake swedish lives. Clogs, small animals, crazy buttons, it is all happening very soon. (having said that, it will probably be quite crap, but you must be nice about it)

2. learning to Link again. Linking was out. Or rather, i forgot how to do it, and was putting up a show of "too good to link" to paper over my flimsy technical skills. But now, (that i've got someone to help do it) linking is in, and i will shortly be regaling you with linkages glorious.

3. Recipe Corner!! Faux-scandinavian recipes from all corners of the nordic pants will be gracing our pages. As scrumptious sneak-peak morsel of things to come, I present you with:

Mr Fop's "Mämmi and daddy special" a dark brown porridge made of water and sweetened rye malt. It is baked in a slow oven in cardboard boxes made to look like birchbark baskets. Nowadays mämmi is a dessert served with cream and sugar, but originally it used to be a Lenten provision, eaten cold as such or spread on top of a slice of bread.


keskiviikkona, marraskuuta 17, 2004

Ladeeyz: a word?

call me an oldskool femininazi, but i have no respect for women (in this DAY and AGE *wringing hands*) who re-name themselves their husband's name when they get marred. what? there is a small excuse for this kind of thing if you have a terrible surname which you can't wait to ditch (such as crapp) or, if you are living in the 18th century, but apart from that, i think it is lame lame lame.

a) stick to your own name, you've worn it long enough and it should be comfortable by now. If you have trouble with the idea of having sex with someone who doesn't have the same name as you, then you should go back to tasmania, stop reading Flowers in the Attic and get yourself some decent therapy;

b) hyphenate yourself like crazy! double your fun with a double-barrell surname;

c) both of you adopt a made-up merger of both names by deed poll, eg Woods and Slovic becomes Wovics or Sloods). Just think! you'll be unique in the phone book!

d) adapt to icelandic traditional naming conventions and take your mother's name + "dottir" as your surname (by extension, this means you could have the glorious joy of referring to your newly betrothed by his icelandic surname - his dad's first name + "sson", for example, Brent Waynesson or Trevor Kostasson - how lovely!)

But... what about the children???
Well, what about the children? Name them what you want - that's half the fun isn't it? if you've got a partner who demands the stamp of sireship upon your offspring by ensuring that they "carry the family name" then surely you can work out something along the lines of b) c) or d) above. At the very least, for those with hyphenationphobia, make your surname one of the kids' middle names. only on the weekend one of my cousins was lamenting that she hadn't added in her own surname into the kids' names.

My suspicion is the real reason women change their names is as a bit of a status symbol - "look! Married! See?" Which is all very good when you've just got yourself hitched and want to rub everyone's nose in it, but further down the track can be a bit tricky if old friends and long-lost family can't find you because your pre-marriage identity has "evaporated". Or, if your matrimonial bondage turns sour, you then have to decide whether to re-arrange your entire identity (bank cards, passport, drivers licence, business cards, professional reputation etc) or to keep the name of someone you don't want to live with, let alone be associated with in the phone book.

keskiviikkona, marraskuuta 10, 2004

Guantanauru Bay?

from the Canberra Times November 11, 2004 Thursday Final Edition

Govt a no-show at detention hearing

Roderick Campbell - Legal Reporter

Nauru might become Australia's equivalent to Guantanamo Bay if proceedings in the High Court yesterdayare any guide.

In what is believed to be an Australian legal first, the Federal Government failed to appear before the court to defend the validity of one of its own laws. Its absence was the subject of bemused comment from Justice Michael Kirby.

He described the failure of the Government to defend a foreign country's attack on the validity of Australian law as "bordering on the astonishing".

The law the Government failed to defend is one which could, in theory, lead to the High Court declaring invalid the detention of asylum-seekers on Nauru.

The case was mounted by a Afghan national, Mohammad Ruhani, who has been in detention on Nauru for nearly three years. He was intercepted by the Royal AustralianNavy while seeking to enter Australia and taken to the detention centre on Nauru as part of the so-called "Pacific solution".

Mr Ruhani sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of Nauru. If successful, he would have won his release, as might have up to 100 other detainees.

When the Supreme Court refused his application, Mr Ruhani's Melbourne-based lawyers appealed to the High Court. Under an Australianlaw passed in 1976, the High Court is the court of appeal for Nauru. Two previous appeals have been heard by the Australian court.

Mr Ruhani's appeal led Nauru authorities to claim that the 1976 law was invalid and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal. It claimed, in effect, that Nauru no longer had a court of appeal. The Federal Government's refusal to intervene in the case - which it has an automatic right to do - suggests that the Government agrees with Nauru.In other words, it is now saying that its own 28-year-old law is invalid and Australia-bound detaineeson Nauru have no appeal rights. In that regard, its position is similar to that of US authorities over the legal rights of suspected terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay.Mr Ruhani's solicitor, Eric Vadarlis,has reportedly claimed the Governmentis funding the challenge by Nauru. A spokeswoman for Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock yesterday dismissed as "unsubstantiated"the funding claim. She said the Government was not siding with Nauru, although it remained committedto the "Pacific solution" to the detention of illegal entrants.

She said the Government had decided not to intervene in the case because its interests in the outcome were not sufficient to justify the cost and effort involved. The parties to the litigation would put all the relevant arguments to the court.She said the Government did not wish to force Nauru to accept the High Court as its court of appeal.

During yesterday's hearing, Justice Kirby pointedly asked Nauru's barrister, Peter Hanks, QC, whether he was "completely divorced from the Commonwealth". Mr Hanks assured the court his instructions came from Nauru.

Nauru's argument is that the 1976 law purports to confer on the High Court judicial power that is not part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.The Australian Constitutionprovides that the court can only exercise federal judicial power.

The court yesterday reserved its decision on the validity of the law. If it decides the law is valid, the merits of Mr Ruhani's case will be decided at a later date.

the How? of Howard

enough of the moaning, if we want to nail this lying rodent at the next election, then we need to start disembowelling his tactics and experimenting with some vaccines for howardism and the spreading disease that is neo-conservatism. maybe experimenting on rats - metaphorically at least - isn't such a bad idea...

as nasty, dishonest, sneaky, and destructive as howard is, he ain't stupid. he has only managed to undermine human rights, international law, rule of law, peaceful global relations, equality and non-discrimination because he has re-branded his actions as "strengthening" / "building" / "defending" Australia.

so, inspired by some mutual email-ranting with el prima, here's my first lesson in dissection.

11/11/04 the abortion debate

"The Prime Minister has sought to cool divisions in Coalition ranks over abortion, ruling out a Government change to the law - but saying he will not block a bid by individual MPs to introduce tougher legislation."

el prima writes:

This does not sound like Howard at all supporting non tough laws on abortions. Sounding like he supports pro choice????? He is playing the "I won't change this law so you have to bargain with me to get it". So he can use it as a trade off for telstra. He is making MPs believe he doesn't want to change it so he can use it as a FN trade-off weapon. If the MPs want this to be passed they must agree on telstra... what a slimy son of a bitch he is. He will use all these, like same sex stuff etc to get what he wants changed ...

so: *re-adjusts glasses in a science-teacher kinda way* what is going on here?

this is exactly the angle Howard played on pauline hanson - appearing to distance himself from it, but encouraging others to push their right-wing agenda, and then moving in that direction anyway. that way he gets what he wants, but he doesn't have to be the one copping the flack publicly for being a racist / homophobic / bigot, and he can claim some kudos for not pushing his personal religious etc agenda. consider family fist his new pauline hanson - they are here to push an extreme right-wing agenda, so that howard can pretend not to agree with them fully, and then he can go for a more "moderate" version of the same thing. this is exactly the way he shifts the "middle ground" further and further to the right - letting others talk the bigotry, so that he can be pretend to be unsure about it in a "considered, objective" way ... then implement it.

howard makes a virtue out of being seen as cautious, boring and conservative, as it allows him to pursue radical right-wing agendas while coming across to ordinary australians as about as non-threatening as their nannas. it works because the media and public have such a short memory that they usually don't notice howard's gradual appropriation of radical ideas such as pauline hanson's turning the asylum seeker boats around. Because media operates by press release, and news feeds off big announcements and rapidly changing events, his slow shift further and further to the right slips under the radar. In the meantime, by making a magnamimous show of humouring right-wing extremists such as hanson and family first, and giving them disproportionate amounts of airtime, Howard shifts the goal posts so that the debate appears to be between his ("moderate" right wing) and their (extreme right-wing) positions, while painting any real opposition as an anti-democratic attempt to silence the extremists.

good to see that howard read his george orwell 1984 thoroughly... already he is planning reintroduction of proposed legislation to wind back unfair dismissal laws - under the double-speak title of "Fair Dismissal".

realising what he does is the first step (and by no means does the above complete that step - i invite others to have their own poke at explaining the howard syndrom). working out how to counter it more effectively is the next.

sunnuntaina, marraskuuta 07, 2004

A little lesson in biology

Some people seem to suggest that being pregnant is rather like having a car in a garage...

car? garage? / fetus? mother?

what is going on here? is marcel white a complete dullard who has never copped an eyeful of a real human woman in his life, or is he just a repetitive misogynist pro-life fundamentalist, who thinks 52% of the population are portable fish-bowls-for-offspring-of-the-lord?

or both?

well, being a nosy sort, i really thought i should take off where marcel's mum had obviously gone to do the shopping or something, leaving his sex education woefully incomplete.

no marcel, a fetus is not like a "car in a garage"...

wherever did you get that idea?
and where do i begin to explain this to you?

i'm not a qualified sex educator but somehow it seems that you managed to slip through grade five without having "the chat". so i'll do my best.

a woman is a grown human being, and although you seem to object to women having the vote, we do live in a society where women have the vote, and are generally assumed to be competent to make their own decisions.

I, for example, am not like a garage. I'm not just here for you to store stuff in - cars, babies, old furniture, whatever...

And guess what, babies really aren't much like cars either - unless you are the kind of person who treats children like expensive possessions, which you polish up and drive around.

babies grow in women's wombs - starting from the fusion of one of her cells, and from a sperm cell from a man - and they are built and nourished by the warmth, energy, and blood supply of the woman. Garages don't make cars but women make babies. and if you want to argue with that in a bible-bashing kinda way, then please show me a case where a baby was made without the kindly assistance of a woman.

Yes, the end product is a baby but the whole *magic* of the affair is that pregnancy is the process of creating life. it takes 9 months or so. Creating human life is not like turning on a lightswitch, it is slow and complicated and it doesn't always work. and it is a serious business - with serious responsibilities. as jayde says - women realise that late-term fetuses look like tiny babies - we know how serious this is. Grossing us out isn't going to stop us making our own decisions. it is exactly *because* women respect the seriousness of creating a human life that they need to be able to make their own decision as to the best time to have a child.

pregnancy is the creation of a life in progress - and a fetus is therefore not a life, but potential life in the process of becoming a full human life. However absolute your ideology is, the process of pregnancy is not absolute, and even left alone, does not always result in the birth of a live baby.

But let's just say for arguments' sake that we test out your offensive little metaphor. Let's say, for example, that i'm in the process of building a car in my garage. no matter whether i've just started mucking around with an engine, or if i've got the whole austin healy restored and ready to go - it is up to me whether i continue making a car, or whether i abandon the project and take up gardening instead.

it's my garage, and if someone like you wants to tell me what i can or can't do in my own garage, or better still, says, "hey, why don't you just finish building that car there and give it to me?" my response would be "fuck off, it is my garage!"

marcel: if you want to debate with women over what you think we should be allowed to do with our bodies and our fetuses, you'll have to start by having a little respect. Pure condescension ("and that is bad, very bad Jayde") just won't cut it.


ps Jayde, before you suggest that being pregnant with a baby which you then have to part with "really isn’t a very big inconvenience, and they should be willing to carry the baby to term as a consequence of their irresponsibility" - i would suggest you read accounts of a few relinquishing mothers. (eg, you could start here) One of my family members went through relinquishment and the impact on her (and my entire family's) lives has been huge - chronic depression, suicide attempts etc. the idea that you can take a baby from a woman and pretend that she is not the mother is not only offensive - it is soul-destroying. Many adoptive parents do a very good job, and there will always be reasons why women cannot raise their own children. But the idea that you can wipe out one set of parents and insert a new (wealthier, married) set is illusory and harmful - better that people acknowledge the reality and maintain some contact with the birth mother.

once again - children are not cars - you can't just sell it off if you don't want it.

torstaina, marraskuuta 04, 2004

Reality? check!

Now that we've got four more years of the empire, it's worth remembering where reality fits within the Bush / neo-con headspace. Any of you who think reality - ie examining what is happening in the world - is a good basis for policy, should realise that there is no room for you in the Bush view of the world. According to one of Bush's senior advisers, the "reality-based community" should just shut up and eat neo-con dust, 'cos this is the new era of shoot first and don't even bother asking questions later.

Ron Suskind reported in the New York Times back in October:

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.''

I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' "

What this exchange almost misses is the fascist core of this neo-con approach - in their scheme of things, it is the neo-con governments and business leaders who go around creating everyone else's reality, and the best we can do is observe it happening. All the more reason why - despite howard and bush gaining majoritan support - i can see democracy eroding before our very eyes.

Now now!

it all gets a bit nasty when we're on the internet and don't have to say things to each others' faces, doesn't it? of course, that is half the charm, but i don't want MAB to file any lawsuits on us without getting the whole picture. So, in the name of being as "fair and balanced" as Fox News, and in a general spirit of electric-lattice lerve, her is my list of things i seriously LOVE about Miranda Airey-Branson:

1. her way with language. okay, yes i read way-hay too much enid blyton / louisa may alcott / jane austen "as a girl" but... there is something about her airey-fairy ways ... it takes true talent to take the piss out of your horse-lovin', pony-tail-flicking, liberal-licking self - why do you think you've captivated so much leftie blogging air-time? there are plenty of right-wing dickheads out there - but we like YOU cos you do it in such a HIGHlarIOUS way, and naively use your real name... comparisons to "sex in the city" however, are misplaced - your writings are funny because they take entertaining prattishness to new highs, because you have put your name to a load of misinformed bigotry which you'll be notorious for in years to come and especially because for all your braying about your clothes and hair-removal techniques, Carrie Bradshaw you are not.

you have a point about the personal abuse re your looks though - i think that should be off-side, but if you can't take it, don't dish it out to others.

2. that she is pro-choice. go you little Lib you! i will happily congratulate all and sundry - including those who are paid up members of the liberal party - who go in to bat for women's right to choose when to have children. and, the more i see her argue with a degree of cogence on the abortion issue, the more i wish she'd think through a few more liberal policies with a bit more of a concern for women's choices. eg getting rid of unfair dismissal laws - as MAB will learn once she graduates, it is hard enough getting equal work and pay in this country, without howard giving a free kick to bosses to let them sack you for being female / pregnant / a parent / a lezzo / not waspy enough blah blah blah. And as much as i dislike the party, the leader, the whole MO of the Libs, they could at least stick to their sales description and show a bit of liberalism when it comes to women having control over their lives and bodies.

3. um... i'm trying to think of another one, to make it a nice round three...

4. hilarious statements like "In Australia, nobody is born into the cream - but it is possible to enter it through hard work or sheer luck." I just *LOVE* it how every over-priviledged private school kid / college kitten thinks that their parents got so rich on hard work / sheer luck and didn't get a nice fat leg-up thanks to family / connections. ha ha ha ha ha! it is the tooth-fairy of social theory in Australia. Look, i've seen the cream, Miranda, and YOU are dripping with it. Which reminds me of some appropriate words from ogden nash:
"I dont' mind their having a lot of money, and I don't care how they employ it,
But I do think that they damn well ought to admit they enjoy it.
But no, they insist on being stealthy
About the pleasures of being wealthy..."

and, just to balance things out a tad, here is what i do NOT love at all about MABs:

1. that she thinks misleading voters and pretending to be a Green volunteer on election day is fair game. No, it is not, and it is illegal to boot. I hope MAB gets done under the electoral act before she finishes con&admin! "Liberal"... "Environmental credentials" ... heeee heeee! that must be why the Australian Conservation Foundation rated the Liberal forest policy as "Disaster for Tassie's Old Growth Forests" ... and why the Liberals just can't wait to start up a new nuclear reactor at lucas heights to produce wastes that will take 250 million years to stop emitting radiation.... and why john howard's response to global warming is to stick his fingers in his ears, sing "la la la la" while slipping millions of public dollars to the coal industry for "geosequestration". If she thinks Liberal environmental policies are so good, why couldn't she hand the HTV out wearing a Liberal t-shirt?

2. that she's obsessed with being thin and hairless and tanned. Honey - if your desired bodily state were a horse, you'd be luggage! now these little obsessions are bad enough when you apply them to yourself - but you seem to want to force them upon the rest of us laydeez... you've made some pretentions to being "liberal and a feminist" - now go off and read the Beauty Myth for starters, followed by lashings of Kaz Cooke and Margaret Cho.

3. she's happy to jump on the Liberal band-wagon of triumphalist dickheads whose main response to concerns about human rights / equality / fairness / peaceful international relations under neo-conservative rule is to go "ha ha ha loooooooosers! suck-ed in-ed! guess what we're the M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y and we're going to trample all over your sorry asses even more now that the suckers voted us back in". the best response to this is courtesy of Margaret Cho :

on triumphalist dickheads and majoritan rule:

"I am getting lots of email that are like this.
"Whooo-hoo!!! We won!!!!
It just goes to show how incredibly dumb the Bush voters are. They are not treating this like an election, with many lives at stake with a full blown war being fought by our kids in Iraq; cataclysmic errors in national security causing our civil liberties to be severely crippled; too great a divide between the haves and the have-nots culminating in the worst economic situation in nearly eight decades; the threat to women's rights by insane religious fanatics seeking to ban abortion and therefore do away with equality; the aberration of freedom that is the Federal Marriage Amendment and the dehumanization of gay and lesbian Americans, etc, etc, etc. They are acting like it is some kind of sporting event, like their team won, and they are going to celebrate by doing beer bongs and hanging each other outside hotel windows by their big, stupid, un- evolved webbed feet. They see America like a giant tailgate party, and they are getting ready for the big game with Al-Qaeda.
Unfortunately, this is not an action film, and therefore, having the Terminator on your side is no advantage. Might does not equal right, just as we must awaken to the hard, cold realization that majority should not rule. The majority is responsible for slavery, denying women and minorities the vote, Japanese internment, segregation, lynching and a million other injustices and inhumanities. Fortunately, this majority is one by a very small margin. I encourage everyone who is distressed by the outcome of the election to remember that just because Bush is still in office does not mean that his power will be increased. He is going to have a harder time doing anything, because he knows that everyone is watching and waiting for him to make a mistake, of which there will be countless many. "

keskiviikkona, marraskuuta 03, 2004

Tha Family FIST

Think "families" are all about love, caring for one another and providing a space for kids to learn and grow?

Well, get yo'self ready for the cooler, harder tougher version of "family" - that's right! the FAMILY FIST!

Nunna that caring / love rubbish - this (cult) family is all about corporal punishment, burning lesbians at the stake (taking the notion of "family barbeque" to new levels) and harrassing women seeking abortions until they give in**. Oh, and making sh*tloads of moula by selling off cheap-arse development properties and claiming your wealth as "god's divine will". That's right, not only is the best way to run a family with an IRON FIST, but with a little bit of creative bible re-mixing, you can make out that it is GOD's IRON FIST! That way, you get to be sanctimonious and claim it all as tax-free!

And what is a FIST best at? Yep, that's right - punching stuff into a pulp!! and isn't there a lot of stuff that needs punching into a pulp these days... euthanasia, pornography, same-sex marriages and sex before marriage - all that stuff is just aching to be punched into a pulp! What's a family if you can't get together and punch stuff into a pulp? And if you've got any other suggestions as to what a fist is best at, then I suggest that Pastor Fielding here needs to take you for a wander round the back of our $6million dollar worship-tainment venue to be punched into a pulp.

So what is so good about the FAMILY FIST?

1. you don't even need much popular support to get elected.
That's right - just sort yourself out some cosy preference deals with some ill-informed and catty centre party dickheads and you can still get a senate seat, despite polling one-fifth of the Greens vote.

2. it doesn't matter if your party is just a front for the Assemblies of God cult - just take the JWH approach and deny / obfuscate / deny / pretend, and you'll be right.

3. you can have all the christian kudos (ie telling everyone else what they can and can't do) without any of the lame compassionate stuff (ie helping out those less fortunate, leaving it up to the big guy to make the judgements on people etc). and better still, the Liberals will lap it up, because the FAMILY FIST type of christianity is all about the big C - Capitalism. If you're rich, God loves ya, and the government should throw more money at ya. If you're poor, well you should have a long hard think about what exactly you did to piss god off, but on your own time, not while you're sweeping our floors for $5 an hour.

4. to expand on the above - you get a nice innocuous concept like "family", don't release any firm policies before the election, focus your campaign on spreading lies about small progressive parties and then once you get in (on the back of losers' preferences - see 1) then you can do what the f*ck you like. More specifically, just say you are in a business such as ... um, let's see now, property development, then as soon as you get in, you can push policies which might help along the property development industry. You know, like letting first homebuyers access their superannuation to buy property (cos, what with escalating property prices, ballooning HECS debt, and record high credit card debt, there is no way in hell those suckers who don't have rich-ass parents can afford to buy a home without a bit of help). That way, house prices escalate further, we make a bag-load of money, and the suckers have no super left for their retirement so they have to keep working until they hit "medicare gold" age - ha ha!

So go get yourself FAMILY FIST-ed!!

** eg by making them have compulsory ultrasounds - for early stages of pregancy this involves using what has been unaffectionately termed "dildocam"... ouch!

tiistaina, marraskuuta 02, 2004

Oh I've found ms fits' nemesis, and i'm jealous! she is just *too* funny!!!! A 20-year-old Young Liberals college girl with a thing for horses and impersonating Greens volunteers on election day so that she can hand out Liberal leaflets.

Miranda Airey-Branson: will you be my nemesis too?

here's what she's got to say on "my people":

Could it be possible lesbians just haven't found the right man yet?
The other day, I had a nasty run in with some lesbians. Luckily, my boyfriend and a couple of other (male) friends were around to fend them off, and as these 'womyn' were retreating I managed to get a good look at what they were wearing.

One was short and fat; the other was a bit taller, and fat. They were both poured into tight, unflattering pants. One was wearing a studded black belt that, if it were around a chihuahua's neck, would make a chihuahua look fierce. One had short hair that looked as if it had been cut with a knife and fork, the other had longer wild thick black hair that could well house a spider.

Clearly they were trying to make some sort of statement, but I ask, how on earth are they ever going to attract a man dressed like that? While I accept that some people are simply born without the natural urge to reproduce, and are naturally (or unnaturally, really) homosexual, it is true that many young girls find solace in the label of 'lesbian' while denying their true heterosexuality. The girl who got teased at school. The fat girl. The ugly girl. The girl who has had her heart broken by a cad. Girls who are disenchanted for some reason with the opposite sex, simply stop making the effort to relate to men, and lazily turn to slightly trendy 'lesbianism.'

Some lesbians are lazy. After all, it costs a lot less and takes less time and effort to let your body hair grow and buy ugly clothes from the Op shop than it does to shave, wax, wear proper clothes, have your hair done and put on makeup so you look your best. So, the lazy, disenchanted girls let themselves go and settle for second best in both appearance and sexual partner (ew!).

I'd love to give my two lesbian assailants a makeover, but I'm afraid the impetus has to come from them, and I'm not just talking appearance. It's time they made the effort to get themselves into shape and face the fact that not all men are bastards - in fact, hardly any at all.

this was my first seranade in her direction:

Oh Miranda you are exactly right! I'm a lezzo, and i am too damn LAZY to wax my legs! Actually, my girlfriend has been offering to wax them for me for the last 5 weeks, but what with working full time as a lawyer, organising and attending party meetings, cooking for and looking after her (g/f's) three kids, and maintaining some semblance of a social life, i just haven't had time. you should see my underarms - they're FERAL! I do quite like a bit of occasional smoothness, but at times like this, when life gets in the way, i have to admit that depilation is the first thing to fall off my agenda. Lazy me!

But there is one bit where your theory needs a bit more work - perhaps by talking to a few more real live lesbians. Picking up men is dead easy - it is picking up lesbians which requires huge amounts of effort. And we are talking from experience here. Even when I tell men that i'm attached, that i'm a lezzo, they still seem to keep offering up their goods. to no avail! perhaps i should redirect them to you? Lesbians on the other hand... they are HARD! And booking yourself in for an AMEX's worth of waxing and tanning won't help you honey - these girls are fickle!

i realise college is a bit of a barren wasteland when it comes to willing subjects for your research into the habits and mindsets of lesbians (oh yes, i've been there). but don't worry - give them a few years (or months) after they move out of college and they'll come out. but in the meantime, i'd try and keep as open attitude about it as possible, as you don't know which of your friends (whom you have kindly listed) are gay, straight or bi, and taking the "ew - lesbians - gross!" approach is only likely to a) make them disappear as soon as they leave college and never see you again, b) think that they *have* to grow hairy legs in order to be a proper lesbian c) drive them to depression / ideas about throwing themselves under buses.

Now that i think about it though, i've got a few more questions / comments:
1. why does she need men to chase off the lesbians for her? is she scared they might "infect" her? is she worried that she might have a recessive lesbian gene (oh you know that very horsey aunt hillary who never got married mumble mumble...)? and why does she think that these women might be interested in

2. "hair cut with a knife and fork" - lovely!! this is exactly what i adore in a nemesis - a way with diction! as long as she can keep being so lyrical, it really doesn't bother me that she's a homophobic, superficial conservative git.

3. how exactly does MAB (her new affectionate appellation) make the link between observing someone wearing a studded belt, "unflattering pants" and an unusual hairdo and then assuming that this person thinks that "all men are bastards"? It does seem that she didn't get a chance to talk to these women, because she immediately sent off her boyfriend and several other males to "fend them off" - so how has she ascertained their view of all-men-in-general? And how is she to help the cause of poor benighted men and improve their standing in the eyes of lesbians if she keeps urging them to frighten lesbians away as a matter of course? Dear MAB - this kind of sloppy logic and field observation simply will not do if you wish to retain your standing as "most sought after nemesis"!!