Alarming News

January 30, 2008

Eye. Roll.

Dear women of the world, Carol Sarler of Britain’s Daily Mail doesn’t think you should worry about your man having an affair. At least he’s not beating you. And no, sadly, she’s not kidding.

Posted by Karol at 10:29 PM |
Technorati Tags:

“At least he’s not beating you.”
Sounds like that author knows a lot of women who are married to Jihadists !

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at January 30, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Ah, the “cheating is part of life” column. It’s a hardy perennial:

Posted by: See-Dubya at January 30, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I think she completely misses the point by invoking HRC’s Potemkin marriage.
She’s not being criticized for “forgiving” the Philanderer-in-Chief. She’s being attacked because she remained in a marriage contrived for the sole purpose of advancing this couple’s political ambitions, while simultaneously mouthing completely empty feminist cliches.

Posted by: Gerard at January 31, 2008 at 2:13 am

I say the golden rule simply applies, and in two ways:
1.) If one party would fly off the handle if they came home and found their wife getting serviced by the poolboy, then they have no right to complain when all their stuff is a bonfire in the front yard after they decided to hook up wiht some groupie.
2.) Likewise, if one part would want understanding, love, and respect if they happened to have a night where they f-ed up, then they should extend the same.
I an understand what the author is clumsily saying, myself. On the patheon of boorish behaviour, cheating on someone _is_ below beating or addiction. Likewise, she is correct in that society lauds women who stick with their men through the latter two. However, where I heartily disagree is that a dalliance is still okay because it’s something that’s been done for years. When a person who can’t keep it zipped can give their faithful partner HIV we’re only talking a hair of difference (namely the level of violence before the terminal point) between beating and cheating.

Posted by: James at January 31, 2008 at 9:04 am

This newspaper is truly awful. It

Posted by: bryan at February 1, 2008 at 9:39 am

When Arab-Muslims protest the influx of Jews into “their countries,” I don’t think bryan (with a lower-case ‘b’ !) ever dismisses it as “right wing bias.”
I think he calls it “making Arab-Muslims angry.”
bryan also wrote;
“Recently some prostitues were murdered (trial on at the moment). Simon Heffer of the same paper said they knew what they were doing, it served them right. Crass bastard.”
Recently some Jihadists flew airplanes into buildings in America. Some 3,000 people were murdered. Leftists such as Ward Churchill and Islamic sympathizers said that since those people in the buildings knew what they were doing when they went to work that day, they deserved it.

Posted by: BadBoyInASuit at February 1, 2008 at 1:40 pm

I think you missed the point of the article. I think what she is saying is that society is more prepared to criticise a woman if she leaves a man because he beats her, than because he cheats. Whereas it should be vice versa – i.e. society is screwed-up.
She does not say it is OK for a man to cheat or that a woman should be happy about it. Just that, if a man does cheat and his wife does forgive him and tries to make the marriage work – she should not be thrown to the lions and be vilified.

Posted by: Geoffrey at February 1, 2008 at 6:41 pm

badboy, when were jews trying to relocate from a country of oppression to another muslim one? I know they have invaded in order to fight, but does that count?
Re: your allusion to 9/11; have two wrongs ever made a right. My criticism of this fine example of British gutter press seems to have become your excuse to talk up your shit, as usual.

Posted by: bryan at February 2, 2008 at 9:42 am

“I know they have invaded in order to fight”
Yes, in the same way the Allies had to invade Germany and Japan to fight.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 3, 2008 at 10:03 am

Sorry Perry, did there seem to be any ambiguity in what I said? If so thank you sooooo much for clearing it up. I see badboy has gone silent btw.

Posted by: bryan at February 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I never said you made any ambiguity. I was merely clarifying why Israel invaded various Muslim countries to fight (i.e. they were attacked first).
BB probably stopped checking here. This entry is now way down on the page, if you didn’t already notice.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Again, sooo much.
BB stops checking in when his shit gets called, and he can’t answer also.

Posted by: bryan at February 9, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Don’t give yourself too much credit, kiddo. I’m one of the few who bothers to check on threads more than a couple of days old.
And did you understand at all what I said, or are you just trying to put words in my mouth? You opened the door with what you said, so I’m going to clarify why.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Of course I understood what you posted, and also why Israel has rolled into other countries. Can you think of a muslim country being the destination of displaced jews to live? That is the question BB is avoiding.

Posted by: bryan at February 17, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Post a comment