First came the announcement that Hollywood was going to create an all-girls Lord of the Flies, then on Saturday John Lewis said it would make all its children’s clothes ‘gender neutral’. The all-out assault on children, their innocence and reality itself has been relentless.

First, the idiotic idea that one can make an all-female Lord of the Flies movie that remains faithful to the message of the book. The big problem with an all-girls Lord of the Flies is that a gender switch means it is no longer Lord of the Flies.
This is obvious because of the inherent differences between the sexes, which are played out day in, day out, in homes and schools across the country. We know what happens when a group of boys get together: they are boisterous, they wreck your house, they like to fight.

Yes, there are quieter boys who like to read a book, and they are boys just as much as the house-wrecker. But the point, as William Golding demonstrated so effectively, is that these quiet boys are the ones that get picked on by the bullies when adults are not there to impose rules and civilise said bullies.

What exactly will the writers do with the girls in the wild? Will the mean ones psychologically torture the nice ones, while they all starve to death? Will the tomboy who went to Boy Scouts organise everyone to sit around the campfire and collaborate on what to do next? Or will they, as the feminists would have us believe, do exactly what the boys did – go wild, savage and turn on the weaker girls? This is the golden thread in feminist thought: the idea that it is a great triumph when women live down to the lowest standards of men.

The point is that in scenario one or two the film is no longer Lord of the Flies, and in scenario three the idea is too unbelievable to be taken seriously, because in general girls are not as rough and wild as boys.

Which brings us nicely to the equally idiotic decision by John Lewis to make all their girls’ and boys’ clothes ‘gender neutral’.

The Independent said: ‘John Lewis has become the first UK retailer to remove gender labels from its children’s clothing. The department store chain has not only taken “girls” and “boys” labels from clothes, but has also done away with the separate sections in stores. John Lewis own-brand children clothing will now simply say “Girls & Boys” or “Boys & Girls”.

Let’s be clear: this is not countering sexism, it is promoting delusion. The idea that a girl might like dinosaurs, therefore you could put dinosaurs on a dress, was too much for John Lewis to handle. No, instead they have to pretend that this dress can be worn by both boys and girls.

This move does not push back on sexism; in fact it subtly reinforces it. It seems one cannot have a girls’ t-shirt with ‘Future Scientist’ on it – instead we should abolish this notion of girls as scientists completely.

This campaign to tell children that boys and girls can switch genders as easily as they can change their clothes is evil. It propagates the lie, like the idea behind the Lord of the Flies revamp, that there are no innate differences between the sexes. On a more serious note, this lie ends up putting women on the front line in hand-to-hand combat – the height of delusion with dangerous results.

The fact is that men and women are different in significant and profound ways. The most obvious is the reproductive system but boys already have greater muscle mass, core strength and, above all, testosterone than girls. The amount of testosterone boys are exposed to in the womb is the primary reason why they are so much more aggressive than girls. This is why, when they grow up without proper adult guidance, they can turn out to be Left-wing Antifa thugs or white supremacist idiots.

So, sadly for me, John Lewis becomes one more store on the boycott list. Tiresome, but necessary. I leave it up to you, dear reader, whether you should do the same.


  1. This campaign to tell children that boys and girls can switch genders as easily as they can change their clothes is evil. It propagates the lie, like the idea behind the Lord of the Flies revamp, that there are no innate differences between the sexes.

    The gender-switched Lady of the Flies is particularly stupid.

    Having said that, hmmmm, my ex-girlfriend did fashion history (a surprisingly technical and rigorous field scientifically), and occasionally needed my help with some translations and to check her English or French. So I saw some part of the historic data
    that she needed in her studies.

    In the past, similar attempts to coerce sartorial change via special clothing rules for children have had an entirely superficial effect on the differentiation between men’s and women’s clothing. The differentiation has always re-established itself spontaneously in the past, and so it will do so now.

    The boys and girls themselves who are subjected when young to this sort of imposition by adults will themselves turn out to be the ones to spontaneously express in their clothing the natural difference between male and female, if the patterns of History repeat.

    • It is of course overwhelmingly mothers who choose their children’s attire; or, when chosen by relatives as birthday/Christmas presents, it will be the female members of the family who do the choosing. It is also the mother’s decision as to the length of the child’s hair, and its styling. That also holds good for a hundred and one other means of distinction between the sexes. And what we see from this, is that mothers overwhelmingly prefer to keep those distinctions very clear and visible.

      I have always regarded this as eminently sensible. Whether you are attracted to members of your own sex or the opposite, you still need to know, beyond any doubt, whether that other person you are looking at and interacting with is male or female. For a start, it is kind of important if you are thinking about forming a relationship that might go somewhere biologically speaking. It will be pretty important in other ways too, if you recognise that there are differences in functions, abilities, interests, responses and so on between the sexes. For this reason, a few highly visible key pointers that leave you in no doubt from the outset, are very useful.

      On the other hand, if you think we are all just the same in every way under our skins, and we share equally in a generalised multi-mish-mash of human attributes, I guess it would not matter to you if all children were encouraged to spend exactly half their time playing with dolls and plastic tea sets, and the other half of their time pretending to be racing cars or trying to kill one another with toy guns; and any child who showed a distinct preference for one over the other should be regarded as a threatening aberration in need of treatment and normalisation. I also guess that it would not matter to you if both sexes were put in frilly dresses and had long hair tied up in ribbons; or were all expected to have crew cuts and wear blue dungarees morning, noon and night.

      Time will tell, but I have a strong feeling that 99.99% of the mothers who shop in John Lewis will still pick the flowered dresses and bright pastel shades for their daughters, and the plain trousers and sober colours for their sons. Because mothers are in charge, not the PC wannabe fashion dictators and gender benders who lurk in the upper echelons of John Lewis.

      I also suspect that the very small minority of parents who insist on putting their boys in pink skirts will soon have a seismic and ongoing childhood rebellion on their hands. Good luck with that.

    • Out of interest as I don’t know much about the history of fashion – what was the gender-neutral clothing of the 18th century?

  2. As far as Lord of The Flies goes I think it would be infinitely more scary and gruesome with only girls as characters. From my experience girls are more aggressive and troublesome and only hide their true personalities for social acceptance. Without men I believe that the girls will become truly vicious. There will offcourse be plenty of lezbianism, sexual abuse, torture, jealousy etc.etc. Without men to wind up and have doing their evil deeds for them they will have to do it themselves.

      • I think there is an interesting article to be written about the nature of women as top industry leaders and politicians a la Merkel or May and why only very few women in my opinion, actually make good leaders at that level. I don’t think either of these two are any good.

        Women are not natural leaders as post modernist egalitarianism would have you believe, in that everyone is interchangeable by gender. Sure, in an office doing spreadsheets, no problem. But what about real leadership? The stuff that drives a nation forward? Drives prosperity and security? Drives a national will to better ourselves and protect our way of life? Our heritage? Our people? Our culture? Our history of a thousand years and longer?

        I often feel the difficulty with women at the top is that fundamental, existential level problems are never resolved absolutely, to the point of violence as required because women are not physically strong, so they cannot backup threats in a meaningful sense on their own, preferring either the “Can’t-we-all-get-along?” route or just b1tching about it. Other approaches are available of course : denial, displacement, intellectualisation, fantasy, compensation, projection and so on.

        With a man, you always know that any chosen stand may require physical violence to back it up and that may also involve being beaten up, but violence is always an available option and always considered, largely subliminally. Since the risk of injury is great, I think men tend to take all options more seriously and opt for violence where necessary, knowing that when we say all options are on the table, they really are. The gist is, there will be an absolute outcome thus satisfying the need for resolution.

    • Agree entirely. Classical history and mythology is replete with stories of the female devotees of Dionysus/Bacchus ‘wilding’ and tearing men from limb to limb.

  3. I have often wondered if those pairs of infant identical twins, whom one encounters every once in a while, who are dressed in exactly the same way, are permitted to choose their colours, or are simply condemned to be permanent twins by their parents. In some cases, I am sure, the bond between twins is such that they do genuinely have the same tastes, but I suspect that the desire for identicalness in other instances is stronger in the parent than in the twins themselves.

    I have never heard of a family with identical twins in which one was a boy and the other a girl (their designations, presumably, interchangeable now, given the present zeitgeist), although we must, I suppose, expect that imminently. Why should twins be “assigned” the same “gender” at birth and look the same, to qualify as identical? How elitist is that? When my sister and I were children, we were often taken for twins. Of course, I am far too much the gentleman to reveal which of us is actually nineteen months older.

    If, however, after all these years as a bloke, I can suddenly decide to be a woman and have the law of the land treat that with deadly seriousness, why can’t I also swap birthdays with my sister? In fact, why can’t I claim even to BE my sister? At what point does the rather obvious detail of our different anatomy become inadmissible as evidence? Transgenderism is a psychiatric issue for a very small minority and a weapon for a somewhat larger activist clique, intent on sabotaging social norms. Quite why government, plod and the beak all have to indulge the saboteurs escapes me.

    Treating little girls as little boys and vice versa is child abuse.

    • I have never heard of a family with identical twins in which one was a boy and the other a girl

      It’s actually a biological possibility, though extremely rare — if there is a split from one XX into two and a later change in one of them of an X chromosome into a Y to XY.

      If only seen a pair of twins like this once, at University in Paris — it was VERY disconcerting …

      • Many years ago I was involved with people attending a day hospital for those with psychiatric and emotional problems. There were two women who each had an identical twin; and they both told the same story – that when they were growing up, their parents had insisted on emphasising their “twinness” all the time, making them wear the same clothes and share the same activities and experiences. They were never allowed to express their individuality, and it had made them feel stunted and unfulfilled. It was, for both of them, the major factor in subsequent emotional breakdowns as adults.

        Incidentally at the hospital there was also another female whose twin was a man. So yes, it does happen.

  4. Hi Laura

    Delighted to see you have a boycott list. Me too.

    But I am not sure how well mine works. I read stories about these companies decide to boycott them and realise after a short period of time that it’s not working. Sometimes I carry on with the boycott for a while other times I give in.

    One I particularly remember was a story about Subway. One of their French shops had had some special offer on Valentines Day for couples, but only male-female couples.

    Once Subway HO discovered this the shop was closed down for a week while the owner was taken away for “Re-training”.

    So I put them on my boycott list. I hope that someone else did too, but I don’t think there were enough of us to make much difference. In the end I gave up.

    There are far too many bad companies out there for us all to boycott them all. And some of them would prefer to and be able to ride out the storm.

    But some wouldn’t and couldn’t.

    I believe that the only way to fight back against these companies is if we can join together, and pick out just one or two or three. Companies that we can get a big response against and that don’t have the resources behind them to fight off the sustained attack.

    If individuals want to and are able to boycott others as well, then good for them but most people are unable and/or unwilling to boycott everyone and in many cases it won’t do any good.

    I keep throwing this out there. I get a few upticks but nothing much in the way of real response.

    Am I wrong? Is there no point in it?

    National Trust seems to have been moved recently by a relatively concerted attack. Can we do that again?

    • I can only advise that you keep up the boycott. It is what I am doing in many cases still, even years after the event that choked me off. But remember to tell the merchant what you are doing, and why.

      • But other than making you feel better about yourself is that doing any good?
        If they are getting two letters a year from the same people then they are probably laughing. In fact if they realise that people are aware of their actions and except for two are doing nothing then I think it will probably encourage them in their actions.

        Particularly if it’s a large company.

  5. I think the idea of remaking Lord of the Flies with girls is rather interesting. The idea that girls are somehow less prone to going feral is a pure feminism, which never tires of telling us how much better the world would be if it wasn’t run by men.

  6. Yes, a kind of madness is afflicting the general scene, and common-sense is flying out of the window. The use of the word gender, instead of sex, is not helpful: I wonder how long it will be before this new movement flops. Its sweep all before it, totalitarian edge attitude, is unhelpful. I hope that our boys and girls will put it where it belongs: in the bin.

  7. Side note: It’s always interesting how in articles like this, one is always quick to claim men are naturally more aggressive than women. It’s an idea that is convenient here, but not much in an article that discusses rape, domestic violence, or male criminal behavior.

    • Its not as much men, as people with high testosterone. Although almost everyone with that are men. There are some verry few women that has this too. Testosterone is an agression inducing hormone.

      • Healthy women have testosterone. The amount varies (often on an annual cycle, it is thought) and can exceed that of the average man.

        There is no scientific proof behind the feminist myth that testosterone induces violent behaviour. In fact, quite the opposite is true and testosterone tablets are increasingly being prescribed as a calming drug.

        • Everyone has testosterone. And in most cases it has no bearing on you. However above average male levels correlate with violent/aggressive behaviour. It also peaks in all animals that compete for females for reproduction when the females are in estrus. And it always makes them more violent and agressive.

          That combined with all mammalian males beeing territorial in some form or another (wich also requires agressivness) is probably the reason for the descrepancy.

          • Such concepts confuse cause and outcome. Yes, it has been found that stags, for example, have higher testosterone in them during rutting season. Stags fight for the right to mate and fight for that right. Stags given high testosterone shots outside of rutting season are not notably more violent, indicating that while a rutting stag has higher testosterone, it is not a cause of violence. Rather, the natural instinct to mate (with many does) is what causes the fighting.

            No large-scale properly-conducted (therefore, not feminist) study has shown that in human males, generally, high levels of testosterone causes aggressive behaviour. It CAN do this to individuals but the proof that it does not do this generally indicates that something else combines with the high testosterone in those exceptions.

            Testosterone has been found to be high in prison inmates who are aggressive. It is largely from that that the myth of testosterone=aggression relies on (other than continued feminist repeats). However, testosterone is released to calm a person (male or female) and it is entirely possible that the aggressive inmates were under stress or anxiety, which could be a cause for the aggression in the first place.

  8. Further evidence of the delusional society in which we live today. In times past people who denied reality (as John Lewis stores are doing) would have been referred to a psychiatrist. Today it is those who oppose the “gender-neutral” madness of John Lewis and their ilk who are considered to be “not right in the head.” I note with concern that the writer Laura Perrins mentions the word “sexism” and in such a way as to lead me to believe that she believes it exists and needs to be “countered.” I do not use the word “sexism” because I consider its use to be a capitulation to Feminism which employs that word to silence all opposition to the biological fact that males and females are different.I refuse to read from the feminist script. Laura Perrins should do likewise.

  9. The John Lewis decision is another attack on boys. Boys are becoming feminised in our culture – they wear leggings like girls, they wear extremely tight trousers which must restrict the male zone and will probably cause an even further decline in sperm count, which has been declining for years. Girls already wear boys clothes apart from pretty dresses and shoes – so is it boys in pretty dresses and sparkly shoes next! For sale at your nearest John Lewis.I suppose some idiot mother seeking publicity will oblige the news media and we will all groan. I cannot boycott them as I don’t buy them – they are too expensive. I am sad that I am going to have to boycott Lidl as they have been Photoshopping Orthodox Church crosses from domes on the packaging of my favourite Greek yoghurt!

  10. I think I have recently posted this quote on the forum but it may be worth another outing as it is very pertinent:

    “..conservatives must abandon the delusion that capitalism’s political interests are identical with their own…Big business today is on the left on every important issue that does not directly affect its profits. Its emerging ideology is to tack to the left on non-economic issues it does not really care about in order to tack to the right on the economic issues it does.” (Ian Fletcher)

    John Lewis is commendable for its unusual employee ownership structure. I’ve never understood, however, how they’ve got away with their “never knowingly undersold” slogan.

    • It’s a tragedy that capitalists are on the side of Left- liberal social issues.

      Post-Brexit, unshackled from the EU’s favour towards ‘monopoly capitalism’ and competing on the global scale – our capitalists are going to need strong families in order to reduce production costs.

  11. As a parent who brought up both a boy and a girl, I have to take exception to the claim that “in general girls are not as rough and wild as boys.”

    I could agree that boys tend to be more physical than girls, both in play and offence. However, a pack of girls can be incredibly cruel, nasty and rough to another girl. In extremes such as portrayed by Lord of the Flies, girls will indeed be physically violent.

    That girls are not generally physically strong enough to overcome boys of the same age is not in dispute. If Hollywood decided to make a mixed-sex version of the story, I think there would be no more problem. However, while the build-up to violence might be rather different with a pack of young girls, I suspect the outcome could be at least as bad.

    On a last note, please do not fall for the feminist myths that (1) only males have testosterone and (2) testosterone causes violent behaviour. Science, as usual, proves feminists wrong and testosterone prescriptions are increasingly common as a mood soother. (Such tablets should only be taken on the advice of your doctor: testosterone is not a panacea.)

    • Hmm.. I grew up somewhere northern and a bit ‘ard before everything turned progressive and therapeutic, but only recall one proper school-side girl-fight next to dozens and dozens between pairs of boys. Not disputing it, but what makes you think girls might attack in a pack? They obviously do that for psychological stuff, but I haven’t seen it for physical.

      • Just as one example, look into treatment of women who sought the favours of occupying troops during WW2. These women were set upon by hordes of other women when the occupying troops departed. Most of them survived, it is true, but not all of them had pretty faces afterwards.

    • Males have A LOT MORE testosterone than girls. Much more on average. Testosterone goes to motivation to dominate – it can be motivation to violence or motivation to kiss babies needed to get to the top of politics. But they are more aggressive. Perhaps my eldest girl is just more gentle than others. I have to tell her to defend herself. I said the other day I would like her to do karate. “I don’t want to, I don’t want to hit people.’

      • No hitting in Karate. It’s more like dancing than boxing. It is however very good for fostering self-confidence. It can be very dull for parents though. They have training weekends and gradings as soon as they get a bit good, but watching different children doing the same routine more or less well for hours at a time, is seriously dull.

        • So I said this to her! I said it was about balance and control etc, etc. Actually it really would be better for the boy – so that he learns self-control. Still …

  12. I include this excellent exploration of the research findings on the differences between women and men, boys and girls, based on empirical analysis and therefore not in accord with the political correct “we are only nurtured differently”. It has the added advantage of being research done by a women in co-operation with a man and also contains some interesting observations on differences in conflict resolution between the sexes.

    • Some ideologues have been pushing this “we are only nurtured differently” since the 18th Century and Rousseau, and keep on doing so regardless of the abject failure of every social experiment so far in that direction.

      Seems they just can’t get the message that they’re wrong.

      • You have great insight.

        Rousseau; that Father of fascism.

        I admire your posts. For, I too, am learning.

        • Rousseau mostly popularised Locke’s ideas.

          Unfortunately, English were always on the edge of “blank slate” mindset development; hence why current insanity is the most pronoun here.

  13. “Will the tomboy who went to Boy Scouts organise everyone to sit around the campfire and collaborate on what to do next?”

    14-year-old daughter enjoys going to Scouts. Last year she was one of her eclectic bunch of non-Amazonian girl Scouts who went to one of those weekend events and walked away with a winning trophy having out-performed ~120 other teams (mostly all-boy including some from Poshville who specifically train for this stuff). Amusingly, the trophy was for the Assault Course.

    Dunno either, but they’ve know each other since knee-high, three are very bright/rational and likely knew exactly where to deploy which talent. I wouldn’t describe any of them as a tomboy and they can all bake ridiculously fancy cakes and do well-dressed (not tarty) girl. They’re just more stoic, independent types less in thrall to contemporary teen-girl culture. Compared to boys I’m told school-side girls are typically “complicated.. really competitive and judgemental” and I believe part of the reason these ones do Scouts is to get away from the ever-critical gaze of that type of girl peer.

    In every version of my script, the mean Queen Bee is in a sobbing heap within no time and stays that way unless I have her fall off a cliff. That is because they’re the most useless once deprived of their acolytes, comfort and ability to remain ‘beautiful’ etc. I can’t realistically make the self-centred talky ones fare any better, so the outcome will devolve to the quieter, more modest girls. If I make one of the latter my daughter, then she’ll be useful, saintly and reassuring to the others for a while (even the garrulous wannabe-feminist she thinks is an irrational idiot). Eventually she’ll be pushed too far and surprise them all by going ballistic the way she does at home sometimes, before storming off and coping fine by herself. Everyone else will suffer and/or die via neglect of collaborative decisions that matter, as opposed the schedule for sleeping on the most comfortable pile of bracken. The end.

    [Might be a teensy bit biased, but it is based on some of daughter’s many tales from girl-world].

          • First two paras = 100% true, but perhaps you’re displacing a dislike of girls at Scouts? Only part that isn’t quite close to a real life and stories here in the third para is ‘suffer/die’. Do you have current generation children or just theories?

          • Madam,

            If the first two paragraphs are ‘100% true’; can you not see that that discredits your post as incredible?

          • Well I can see why it seems incredible, because I thought it was incredible and for days I couldn’t help giggling about it every time it crossed my mind.

            One detail that might be quite relevant is that this is southern flatlands and here my daughter is rare for being a quite good rock climber. One of her assigned missions was to run up the stockiest girl, leap for and catch the top of walls etc. “I felt really guilty having to tread on [friend] to…”. Perhaps those elements of the course were the ones that slowed everyone else down,

    • PiqueABoo
      You daughter sounds awesome. Although I do not think the boy scouts should have been forced to admit girls, thereby depriving boys of their all-male space, I can see why you would send your daughter there.
      I certainly would do that over the stupid girl guides that has been trashed by the feminists.
      I say this as I was a bit of a tom-boy myself, and avoided the mean girls more or less.

      Teaching resilience – both physical and emotional very important for girls (something I want to do with my sensitive eldest).

      The main thing to teach both sons and daughter skills – this is what builds self-esteem not lessons in self-esteem. I’m pretty easy going that those skills should be, cooking, coding, touch typing, and driving to me are pretty good bets for both boys and girls.

      Good luck.

      • Thanks, although can’t take much parenting credit beyond causing no harm and making a few opportunities. Just one of those girls who becomes very good at anything she sets her mind to, and most delightful for being a sane, observant child who will not follow an irrational consensus.

        Guides vs. Scouts reminds me of progressive vs. traditional education. Guides is progressive, child-centred and inclusive with badges/GFIs for every kind of girl. Some may be better, but that has made local Guides is a girly social club with lots of faffing about on mobiles.

        For the most part their Scouts is still what you expect. A key point is that these girls have explicitly chosen the more traditional derring-do activities, don’t want or need any special favours beyond the obvious e.g. a female leader around and a girl-only tents at various events and camps. There are still pockets of single-sex space and I think having both there is doing more good than harm. They’re learning quite a lot about real on-average differences between sexes and absolute differences between individuals. Think of it as a kind of vaccination against identity politics and victim culture.

        We’re lucky with a lot of resilience covered, but have anxiety around not living up to certain high expectations. For instance in local pond daughter is a star pianist, so her friends tell her she is ‘amazing’ and several teachers have made similar noises. That means she is sometimes asked to perform, always agrees to do it and then suffers from considerable anxiety about what they will think if her performance isn’t amazing. There’s a circle that keeps going round where she’s self-deprecating in an attempt to lower everyone’s expectations and in response her decent supportive friends tell her she’s really good in an attempt to boost her confidence. Children can definitely be tricky.

        Completely agree with the order re. ‘self-esteem’. Progressive education ideology seems to be quite keen on putting consequences up front e.g. good mathematicians think X, so teach them X first and they’ll become good mathematicians. Fortunately that tide seems to be turning, although there is clearly a long way to go e.g. all the recent hyperbolic fuss about the cruelty of children learning times-tables and phonics.

  14. The Hollywood “elite” and the film industry in general can’t figure out why their profits are falling. The industry is filled with ideologues instead of artists and business men.

    • Moreover, I cannot see boys pleading with their ‘lone mothers’ to pay £13.50 for a ticket.

  15. It’s decades since I read Lord of the Flies but I recall that Golding showed how shallow the grip of civilisation is when society lacks the discipline of an overarching morality whether religious or political. Freed of restraint, the boys reverted to the violence and anarchy of pre-moral man. The BBC broadcast it as a terrifying radio play in the late 1950s or early 1960s. While I do not contest female moral superiority in general, there is no reason to suppose that a society of girls who found themselves in the same position as Golding’s boys would not also break down just as chaotically. It might break down in different ways due to the differences between male and female psychology but with the same result. Quite how is the challenge for the film’s makers to explore and one doesn’t have to be a feminist ideologue to think it’s an interesting idea. Anyone who has brought up daughters will know how nasty and competitive girls are with each other out of adult sight at school or, nowadays, on social media. Feminists congratulating themselves that an all girl Lord of the Flies is some kind of victory over men or patriarchy might just learn something about themselves, which is something we could all be grateful for.

    • I think I really cover this in the piece: “It might break down in different ways due to the differences between male and female psychology but with the same result.” Sure.

      • Not my intention to second guess you but to toss in my pennyworth against the fatuity of the claim of some feminists that an all girl Flies is an empowerment of girls and feminism. I read somewhere that Golding believed women were “better” than man in a way that effectively sacrilised them and justified them taking over the running of the world from men. He wrote the book in or after 1945, i think and since then the social and economic role of women has been transformed everywhere in the West and to some extent even in the Middle East. I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence yet of the general superiority of women exercising political in power with the exception of Mrs Meir, Mrs Gandhi and Mrs Thatcher. Certainly not Mrs Clinton. I also think that some of the girls in Flies will or would be capable of resorting to violence.

        • So what he meant there, was that women are morally superior to men, not superior say in political acumen etc etc. This was one of the arguments of the suffragettes: allowing women who are morally superior to men into the public sphere, will improve it. Today’s feminists would say that this moral superiority of women, angel of the hearth stuff was a way to put them in gilded cages. Safe to say there is probably truth to both.

          In abandoning the home and whole heartedly entering the market and public sphere, women have surrendered any claim to moral superiority, and inherent authority or influence in the home and over children and men in particular. Although I think this still exits day to day to a significant degree.

          • Whether women have surrendered their abstract moral authority or not, they have been remarkably successful in tangibly having it both ways, accumulating public power while retaining domestic authority. Anecdotally, when Gro Harlem Brundtland became prime minister of Norway she asked her husband to take on her domestic responsibilities. He agreed provided that she didn’t interfere with the way he managed their family. I’ve always wondered how that worked out and, being a cynic, assumed badly – for him. Having it all may be like trying to square the circle but the modern woman, confident of her moral superiority and the cowardice of the typical male, is always willing to try.

  16. Lord of the Flies is not a story about children needing to be civilized.
    It is a story about children copying their elders, the point of it is
    that they become a civilization. Just one which emulates the adult
    civilization they grew up in, and as they are children, the effect is to
    strip away all the lies we tell ourselves to stop us realizing how
    savage we are.

    • Do not be ridiculous. Have you spent any time around small children, esp boys? They are the savages, and need adults to civilise them. Hence ‘I blame the parents.’
      Let me know the last group of children that went into the wild and civilised themselves. The girls might manage it – not the boys. (Seriously unbelievably stupid comment.)

        • Men know when to stop, if they don’t, other men tell them to.

          Women never know when to stop, unless a man tells them to.

      • Without trying to put words in Andy’s mouth, what I read into his comment is that Lord of the Flies is not literally a book about how horrible little boys are, but a parable about wider society. So at the end, when the boys are rescued by ‘civilisation’, it is by men who have been fighting a war…is the world just the island writ large?

        • Almost Mike, the point is the savage civilization is copied from the absent adults, it is the civilization we live in, made all the more jarring because it is portrayed as being created by children. Yes the ‘rescue’ by the same savage people is a point well made.

          It appears the use of children to parody the excesses of our civilized natures has passed some people by.

      • “Have you spent any time around small children, esp boys?”

        They are not small children in the book. Nor are they savages, rather the absent adults are, who they copy.

        “Let me know the last group of children that went into the wild and civilised themselves.”

        Most of our ancestors at one point.

        “The girls might manage it – not the boys.”

        Not judging by your abilities to understand a complex point, Barbie.

      • Are you seriously triggered by this movie, Laura?
        Aren’t you?

        You forgot Scenario 4: the girls starve to death, all them. No cruel and barbaric and unfair order, they just starve to death, all them.

        What is the more likely to happen scenario, now?

        Don’t worry so much, I bet £ 10,000 that scenario 4 isn’t the movie plot.

      • Let me know the last group of children that went into the wild and civilised themselves. The girls might manage it – not the boys.

        They’d only be able to attempt a civilisation if the two groups joined forces …

        Anthropologically, the boys would be more likely to, at the least, survive in the wild. Probably only marginally so, but still … the wild is not so utterly hostile as most urban types imagine, but males are better wired to survive there than females.

        The majority of “wild child” individuals found have been boys.

  17. This is John Lewis we are talking about. Waitrose by another name. Car parks full of Prius or uselessly large Volvo/Audi/Rangerover SUVs . Or other such visible displays of either virtue or greed.
    What do you really expect.?
    It is just the nice people of the educated ( so they tell us) middle classes pandering to their neighbours and metropolitan chums or those country dwellers not bright enough to understand that nobody in the shires gives a toss about it.
    Waitrose run by and for the caring virtuous . As long as Asda and Tescos don’t join in forget about it.
    Though in today’s lunatic world they probably will.

Comments are closed.