William Hague - a lifter of gentlemen's shirts?

Great picture isn't it. Could they have found two men looking more gay? Outside of Queero's Nightclub of Poofland Street, Homoville I think not. They look like they're filming a version of Brokeback Mountain set in one of London's Georgian Squares. Looking at the picture, with Hague's self-assured straight ahead smile and his chum's more hesitant grin looking across to William it's difficult not to tentatively assign them the roles of stone and sponge, from left to right.

On one level I don't give a fuck if Hague gives, or takes, it with other men. I have a perfectly ambivalent attitude to gays; live your life as you want as long as my bottom is not touched. Campness on the other hand I find wildly funny, as well as how other people react towards homosexuality in general - there's a lot of humour in the world of gay. So who cares where William puts his nob?

Well, the only problem I see (I'm ignoring the infidelity issue, that's really between the man and his wife) is his voting record on Homosexuality Equal rights as you'll see if you go to that link he has a less than enviable record in this regard. When he didn't vote against the various measures he was absent and only in one minor vote did he vote for the majority (pro-gay) opinion. If it turns out he is a sausage jockey then accusations of hypocrisy will be difficult to ignore.

If, on the other hand, they are untrue. The media should be thoroughly ashamed, including me probably.

The Society of the Clitoris

Women assault men with their bodily pheromones to sell their sex for safety and comfort. This is why it can be argued that all women are whores. This is a purely natural circumstance of evolution which has left the child-bearer weaker than the child-provider. In the 60s and 70s a group of lesbian women across the world decided to push for female dominance - although ironically this urge came from the excess of male testosterone created in their genetic lesbian bodies and minds.

As far as I can tell this goes directly against nature. I don't see that as a good sign and aren't sure where society will go with the increase in female dominance. At the very least it's not a great thing for males and we can already see many negative effects for us. I call this the Society of the Clitoris.

The problem - as ever with solutions to the various 'isms' - is that equal rights becomes mixed up with people being equal. We're not, men are generally bigger, stronger, faster and think more clinically and logically. Women are smaller, weaker, slower and think on a more emotional basis. It should be patently clear that the different sexes fit into different roles in society.

As we try to fit ourselves into the wrong shaped holes, is it any wonder than society suffers? A Swedish survey on gender equality from 2007 noted, "[n]egative effects" to health in both sexes are suggested due to increased stress of the opportunities of the workplace, observed that "one-sided expansion by women into traditionally male roles, spheres and activities will not lead to positive health effects unless men also significantly alter their behaviour".

So, to work, men should go against their nature too, to cater for the aberration of women? This seems wrong to me. Perhaps we should just say that equal rights are a great idea but admit that the sexes are different? Take it down a notch and maybe everyone would be a bit happier.

It might even help women too. I can see a future filled with 40-something women with no kids, no husband, no ability to cook or clean a house. The looks have faded and the pheromones now just smell like bad fish. What have they to offer anyone? Not much is it. All they seem to have ahead of them is 40-50 years of boredom and intense loneliness to look forward to. Thanks Germaine, Andrea and the rest.