Thursday, June 15, 2017

Truth & Good Manners 1 : Feminists & Manginas 0.

Cassie Jaye has nothing to complain about, unlike the rest of us. She came, she was seen, and saw off all her nasty, foul-thinking critics who tried their damnest to rubbish her and her work, but ended up showing just what rubbish they themselves were. Good onya Oz ! Good onya Cassie.

The entire week has been spent clearing up after all the customers who poured in from the last time I posted here. A huge crowd. A week's worth. I am happy to see some 300 faces a day here and stock accordingly, but this week after being inundated by nearly ten times that number I had to send for hurried additional supplies and the Angels were kept busy.  But enough of my housekeeping trivia, what of Cassie?

Cassie managed to get into Oz in the first instance. Unlike the pro-life chap last year, Troy Newman, who was arrested the moment he stepped from the plane and sent packing back to America. So at least she was able to be here to deliver her message. One up for men at least, while unborn babies still die.

She made it onto the stage at the Men's Conference on the Gold Coast, where the reception and attention was first class, and onto the TV 'zhozial juztitz' morning and evening shows where the full fury of the manginas and feminists  was unleashed. She responded with bemused good manners.

Personally, and I speak just for m'self here, I was most encouraged that a nearing 30 American woman who spent much of her teen and early adult years as a dyed-in-the-wool Feminist, could not only change her mind when exposed to reason, evidence, horses-mouth hatreds of feminists and sheer calm persistence of good men, but show that there is Hope. Not only did she work hard on making a truthful film but she also showed that not all modern young adults are lying, whining snowflakes. Indeed, she acquitted herself with calm dignity and good manners. Far better manners than the Oz media displayed.

But let us see and hear from some who have dropped in for a refreshing pint or pina colada.
On Sunday morning, Cassie Jaye was interviewed by Andrew O'Keefe on Sunrise about her new documentary movie The Red Pill. 
During the Sunrise interview, O'Keefe admits he hasn’t even seen the Red Pill movie. Apparently they weren’t able to watch it or didn’t have enough time. How can you even comment or criticise on a movie when you haven’t even watched it?
Shortly after the interview, thousands showed their disgust for O’Keefe on the Sunrise Facebook page. Sunrise have since removed their post because they couldn’t handle the flood of criticism against O’Keefe and feminism. Like the project, they have proven that they are “journalists” lacking integrity with a strong left/feminist bias. 

 The 'Mocker' said: Quoting O'Keefe
“Personally, it horrifies me to think that my girl would be ever be attacked or belittled by a man she loved, or by anyone,” wrote former White Ribbon Foundation chairman and current co-host of Weekend Sunrise Andrew O’Keefe in 2014.
“Do I show my kids that a man doesn’t have to be the tough-guy in control of every situation?” he asked rhetorically.
Well, evidently yes, if O’Keefe’s interview last weekend with Cassie Jaye, director of the documentary The Red Pill, is any indication. The film, which has resulted in protests and cancelled screenings across Australia, focuses on cases where males are disproportionately and adversely affected. Jaye interviewed a range of people for the film, including men’s rights activists, for which she is still being castigated.
“It just seems to me you don’t really question their views in the film,” O’Keefe said to Jaye, whose prompt rebuttal — “Did you see the film?”, she questioned — saw the agitated and defensive host reluctantly admit he had not seen the film in its entirety.
Of course he had not. What need for evidence or even listening does a  drunk, woman-groper, motor-mouth former 'Chairman' of an anti-male Domestic Violence mob have. No need to answer that.

But witter we need not either so, over to Janet Albrechtsen:
It was an embarrassing moment for the former lawyer, who had committed the equivalent of appearing in court without being across his brief. 
Worse still, O’Keefe and his co-host Monique Wright attempted to blame Jaye and her producer for this abrogation, claiming the film had only been provided to them the evening before. In reality, they had been given the film a month prior to the interview, and on two other occasions.
At this point a prudent interviewer might have considered a more conciliatory approach towards his subject. But not O’Keefe, who instead patronised her. “My concern, Cassie,” he said with over-the-top enunciation, “is that… we promote an opposition between men and feminism that’s counter-productive to the genders working together to solve everyone’s problems.” 
In other words, don’t question the narrative that feminism is everyone’s friend. 
After all, it wouldn’t be like third-wave feminists to promote opposition between the sexes, would it?
But more on that later. What stood out in particular was O’Keefe’s manner towards Jaye. 
She presented as intelligent, articulate and persuasive, 
....yet he talked to her as if he were admonishing a child. The excessive hand gesturing, and the resorting to the royal ‘we’ pronoun only compounded this pomposity, as did O’Keefe’s repeatedly addressing Jaye by her first name (presumably just in case she needed reminding). 
His smirking, smugness and his over-talking were an unedifying display of rudeness in contrast to Jaye’s dignified demeanour. 
If only there were a term for a man lecturing a woman in such a condescending fashion.
O’Keefe, as have other critics of The Red Pill, has accused Jaye of tacitly condoning misogyny. Certainly, the men’s rights movement has its share of such offenders. However, feminism too has its fundamentalist elements, irrespective of the fallacious argument that misandry does not exist. One only has to look as far as Fairfax’s Daily Life for examples of this fashionable chauvinism. Fatuous and self-indulgent soliloquies such as ‘Why I won’t let any male babysit my children’ and ‘Misandry Island: This is what a feminist utopia would look like’ sadly are the norm and not the exception.
“I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me,” wrote teacher and feminist Polly Dunning in December 2016 as she reflected on her pregnancy. “How will I raise a son who respects me the way a daughter would?” she wailed without an iota of self-awareness. 
It demonstrates that both the men’s and women’s rights movements have an entitlement mentality. However, the media’s tendency to laud and promote feminism on the one hand, while referring disparagingly to men’s rights activists on the other, is revealing.
Ironically, O’Keefe’s pooh-poohing of The Red Pill is contributing to its success and raising awareness about biases against men, which do exist, although their acknowledgment is wanting. More than 90 per cent of Australian prisoners are male, but you will never hear a gender studies lecturer point to this as evidence of ‘structural sexism’.
In 2013 a retiring Family Court judge warned that mothers were increasingly inventing allegations of child sexual abuse against their husbands to prevent them from seeing their children. But unlike women, men enjoy no gender-specific government-funded legal centre to assist them in such cases. 
Paternity fraud? No such thing. It’s not illegal, and in any event the High Court ruled in 2006 that a mother’s lying to a putative father about the paternity of the child was not a valid action for the tort of deceit. 
Feminist and bioethicist Leslie Cannold has gone one step further by arguing that the euphemistic term “paternal discrepancies” should replace “paternity fraud”.
These are just a few examples. Raising their awareness about these and other aspects of men’s rights, as the The Red Pill seeks to do, does not diminish the campaigns against the sexism that women suffer, particularly the appalling statistic of females murdered by their spouses.
Although we rarely hear of the similar number of male spouses killed by their female partners. And does anyone ever question just how many females killed  have been so at the hand of lesbian partners?  One has to be as  deliberately deaf and blind as O'Keefe not to have known that lesbian violence far outstrips any other 'gendered' violence.
It also challenges one of the most obtuse tenets of militant feminism — the insistence that men’s rights must be analysed according to the principles of a zero sum game.
Amid all the histrionics, Jaye’s suggestion to O’Keefe that people watch her film and “make up their own mind” is the most sensible comment about this affair. Decide for yourself, and don’t defer to the tough guy who wants to be in control of the situation, one might quip.
“Changing my attitude,” wrote O’Keefe in 2008 in his capacity as chairman of the White Ribbon Foundation, “means I need to think about what I say and do and question whether I contribute subtly to the power problem; whether I’m engaging in good-hearted banter, or whether my words are denigrating or subjugating women.” 
Physician, heal thyself.
Physician he ain't so there is little chance of him opening his eyes and ears while his lips are flapping. What he needs is a sound whacking. Cassie was firm but gentle with him.

The only sound voice from the media came from Andrew Bolt. 
Sky News host Andrew Bolt felt he had to apologise to US film-maker Cassie Jaye for the behaviour of the media following two 'aggressive and hostile interviews'.

The former feminist made many media appearances in Australia to promote her new documentary 'The Red Pill', which explores the controversial men's rights movement. Speaking on the Bolt Report, Ms Jaye said other media had never treated her the way Network Seven's Sunrise and Network Ten's The Project did.

The panelists on The Project extensively criticised the film during their interview of Ms Jaye.

'I have never been treated like I have on Sunrise and The Project,' Ms Jaye said.

'A lot of people don't realise my interview with The Project was heavily edited down. The full interview was very hostile....I definitely felt ambushed.'

In the interview with Sunrise, host Andrew O'Keefe admitted to not watching the movie, claiming her publicist didn't send the link through.

Ms Jaye said a link was sent a few times as early as a month before the interview.

She said she was deeply disappointed in how she had been treated.

Andrew Bolt hit out at the network's, apologising to Ms Jaye for coming into an 'intolerant country like Australia'.

'Something serious has gone wrong in our culture and I apologise,' Mr Bolt said.

'It didn't used to be that way. I'm very sorry you've run smack into it.'

The documentary was banned by several Australian cinemas with opponents of the film threatening protests.

She said the journey was a complicated and complex one in order to try a find a 'middle ground'.

'There's obvious silence tactics happening in Australia. I urge people to watch it for themselves.'

Red Pill is the second top rating movie on YouTube in Australia.
 A lot of effort has been expended, money too, trying to prevent anyone seeing Cassie's work.  Yes, there is a focus on Oz at the moment where the vitriol has flowed like beer at a B&S bash, but elsewhere too, especially on the media outlets. Tracy Watson told those standing near in the bar:
Netflix bans “The Red Pill” movie because it contains too much TRUTH
Let me start out by saying that I have no political agenda. Like most of you, I’m just a regular, straight-down-the-middle person living my life. That said, I am open-minded and believe that getting different perspectives and listening to many viewpoints is important in shaping my own views. 
The world would be a bleak place, indeed, if we were all forced to accept only one side of any given equation. And yet, that is what we are increasingly being bullied into doing, as evidenced recently by the totally over-the-top reaction by many to filmmaker Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill.
In the movie, Jaye, an investigative journalist and self-proclaimed feminist, decided to go down the rabbit hole of the Men’s Rights Activism (MRA) movement, described by Urban Dictionary as “an organization of men and their women allies who draw attention to the ways in which misandry (anti-male attitudes and actions) and gynocentrism (women-privileging) harm men.”
The film sets out to examine what MRAs really stand for, what they believe they’re fighting for, and what their attitudes really are towards women.
In spite of the movie’s huge commercial success, 
Netflix has refused to air it. 
In theaters in Canada, Australia and the U.S., feminists have come out en masse to protest viewings, and independent theaters have been under huge pressure not to show it. 
CBC News recently reported that theater patrons and sponsors in Canada have threatened to stop doing business with theaters that dare to go ahead with scheduled screenings.
Gavin McInnes of Rebel Media calls this type of pressure “economic terrorism,” and makes the interesting point that many of the people who protested so vehemently against the film have never even seen it.
McInnes argues that many recent documentaries have been very biased toward one particular viewpoint, and some like An Inconvenient Truth, have been scientifically flawed and totally one-sided, yet have been accepted as fact and allowed to mold the thinking of many.
On the other hand, with The Red Pill, Cassie Jaye does “what true journalists should do,” she insists. 
“You set out with no agenda and you don’t end up where you thought you would.”
And judging by the content of the trailer, that is just what Jaye does. While providing the perspective of the MRAs, and highlighting some of their most pressing issues, she also speaks to prominent feminist activists and journalists to get their take on those issues.
The interviews Jaye conducts for the documentary highlight issues like men having virtually no rights when it comes to custody disputes, and the fact that if a woman should decide to abort her baby, her spouse or partner would have no say in the matter. 
The documentary also highlights the fact that 93 percent of workplace fatalities affect men, and that 4 out of 5 suicides are men. 
As one of the interviewees notes, men are suffering, but, “Society doesn’t want to hear their pain. We value female life more than we value male life.”
Dr. Warren Farrell refers to a “big hole in the area of compassion for boys and men,” and Paul Elam, president and founder of A Voice for Men, notes that the anti-men message is a subtle subtext in statements like “stop violence against women,” rather than simply, “stop all violence.”
In her video diary, Jaye looks really confused and says she’s unsure if the MRAs are simply “duping” her to convince her of their out-there theory that “men are discriminated against, and women have the advantage.”
The trailer also shows her listening to many feminist voices, including that of Katherine Spillar, executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who insists that it is indisputable that women are still oppressed physically, financially and economically, and that in the political and business halls of power, men are advantaged over women.
All in all, the trailer certainly depicts a balanced, thought-provoking documentary that shows both sides of the issue. It’s hard to understand what all the furor is about. But then, perhaps Harry Crouch, president of the National Coalition for Men summed it up best when he said, “We just don’t seem to respect each other for who we are.”
Watch the documentary, and decide for yourself.
I have plentiful supplies of good ale for all customers, so drink deep.


Friday, June 9, 2017

Some Modern Women Warriors.

There are so many left-leaning, narrative-spouting, 'Zozchial-Juztitz' programs on the TV in Oz that a chap's brain could get fried watching them all, unless he retains good sense and wears armour. We had one on the other evening - just for homework. The Project. It is hosted by one Waleed Aly, a man who subscribes to a cult that advocates beating women, stoning them to death for infractions against its vicious patriarchial rules, and killing daughters who talk to boys. He was incensed that a woman defended men's rights. His brain is fried.

He, a darling of the ABC, and another woman, Carrie Bickmore, tried to do a thug-job on Cassie Jaye, a lady we have spoken of in the Tavern before. Fine gal she is. Cassie stood her ground as the hosts twisted and turned and at one point were stunned into silence. And she had not said much at all. 

The panel mentioned a woman a week killed by a partner without mentioning the sex of the partner (lesbians are the most violent of all 'sorts') nor that male partners get killed at a similar rate, nor that we are talking of around 0.000003% of the population in a year. Nor did they mention that 50,000 females are murdered in the womb every year in Oz. By abortion - the woman's carnage. 
50 vs 50,000. Think about that. 
And the 50,000 baby boys too.

No, they focussed on their mate, the Batty woman, a zozchial juztitz Orc who complains about domestic violence at every turn and whose son was killed. Cassie made the point that the son was a male.  HE was the domestic violence victim. Not her. Wally and Co were silenced.

Cassie is a newcomer to the field of finding and defending Truth in this new-age battle of the sexes. She is doing well. And there are others, tried and tested, on the field too. Let us give them some supplies of oxygen.

I was busy rushing between bars the other evening when other women were being talked about in lauditory terms.
Women speaking up for men’s rights

As a fresh-faced 18-year-old Daisy Cousens left school firmly on board the feminism bandwagon. Like many millennial women she’d been seduced by what she now sees as an “entrenched victim mentality”, convinced the scales were tipped against her because of her sex. 
“I assumed I’d have to work twice as hard as men for half the recognition and that violent predators lurk around every street corner,” she says.

It took her years to discover she’d been duped. 
“I realised the feminist view did not reflect my life experiences. I grew suspicious. I couldn’t believe that somehow in Western society women were paid less than men or had fewer rights than men. And given my experience of men, I refused to believe there was an undercurrent of misogyny among all the wonderful men in my life,” says the 28-year-old, who is part of a growing global band of female activists speaking out about the demonisation of men.  
Some of the leading lights in this group will hit our shores this month to speak at an 
international men’s issues conference.

Cousens’s turnaround happened when she was working as a research assistant at the Menzies Research Centre, which led her to start asking questions.
Always a good thing to do, and which Waleed and his mob of lying charlatans do not. 
She found, for instance, that the much heralded “wage gap” largely could be explained by differences in men and women’s work and lifestyle -choices. That was the beginning.

Cousens discovered a thriving online world questioning the feminist narrative and revealing the silencing of critical issues affecting men and boys. 
She’s now writing — mainly in The Spectator Australia and Quadrant — about what she sees as a “silent war on men”.

She is one of many women hosting screenings of Cassie Jaye’s controversial documentary The Red Pill, in which the young feminist filmmaker looks seriously at men’s issues and decides they warrant proper attention. Jaye renounced her feminism in protest against the way extremists were silencing discussion of such matters. 
Ironically Australia is the only country to ban a series of screenings in response to protests from small groups of feminists.
Cousens is confident of a full house for her screening, given the media coverage planned for Jaye’s appearance at the International Conference on Men’s Issues on the Gold Coast from Friday to June 12. 
The conference promises to be an interesting time for Cousens because, as a wannabe Honey Badger, she’ll also be meeting Karen Straughan and that’s as good as it gets.
Karen has been around for quite a while and became quite famous for her You Tube mini-lectures made in her kitchen. 
Straughan, another speaker at ICMI, is one of the founders of the Honey Badger Brigade, a band of brash, witty female activists who’ve taken up the fight for a better deal for men and boys. 
Six years ago Straughan was a Canadian waitress and divorced mother of three who started blogging about how easy it would have been to use the family law system to destroy her ex-husband. She was astonished at how law and social institutions were stacked against men.

Straughan posted a blog (girlwriteswhat) that included this pithy summary of marriage today: 
“For women, marriage is all benefit and zero risk, and that’s why women are whining about men’s reluctance to tie the knot. But for men, it’s the other way around — no guaranteed benefit, and the kind of risk an adrenaline junkie would eschew.” 
Next came a YouTube video, Feminism and the Disposable Male, that has raked up more than 1.5 million views.
Through her social media activities, Straughan got to know other women interested in men’s issues, such as Alison Tieman who, with Straughan, started a Honey Badger radio show.
I remember many a chat with Alison when she went under the  avatar name 'TyphonBlue'. 
Then there’s blogger Janet Bloomfield, whose take-no-prisoners writing style soon attracted a big audience for her JudgyBitch blog promoting “the radical notion that women are adults”.
When protesters threatened to shut down a men’s rights conference in Detroit in 2011, the Honey Badger Brigade flew in to act as “human shields”. It helps to have women involved because female activists can’t be dismissed as sad losers, suggests Straughan. “Men run the risk of being perceived as dangerous or threatening when speaking up,” she says, adding that male activists tend to be “mocked as whiny man-babies or dismissed as dangerous extremist reactionaries who want to make it legal to beat your wife”.
And the name Honey Badgers? That came from a funny YouTube video — The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger — that shows the vicious animal sticking its nose into bee-filled holes, gnawing on mice, tearing the heads off snakes and shaking off venomous cobra bites. 

It’s pretty silly, admits Straughan, but watch her shrug off the constant abuse she receives from feminists or reducing Naomi Wolf into a quivering heap on a television panel and you’ll see there’s something in it.

During Straughan’s visit to Sydney next month she will be appearing on Sky News’s Outsiders program, giving a talk at the Sydney Institute and doing a Q&A with viewers of Mark Latham’s Facebook page.

Then she’ll head up to the Gold Coast where she’ll join impressive speakers presenting at the men’s conference, including a striking number of women — such as Jaye, who is presenting a special screening of her movie.
Then there’s Erin Pizzey, world-renowned as the founder of Britain’s first women’s refuge, who back in the 1970s attracted the wrath of feminists by speaking out about women’s violence. 
Her determination to promote the truth about domestic violence — that it isn’t a gender issue — led to death threats, forcing her for a time to leave the country. 
She has been campaigning for more than 40 years about this vital social issue. Unfortunately ill-health has prevented Pizzey travelling and she’ll give her lecture via Skype.
Another Canadian speaker, Janice Fiamengo, is a professor of English literature whose hugely popular weekly YouTube program, The Fiamengo File, highlights the damaging impact of feminism in academe. 
She is scathing about women’s studies, which she believes has devolved into an intellectually incoherent and dishonest discipline replacing a callow set of slogans for real thought.

Local female men’s rights activists are excited about the chance to discuss with these luminaries how to get men’s issues on to the public agenda. Women such as Melbourne mental health advocate Rae Bonney, whose work with male-dominated workplaces reveals many of the contributors to the high male suicide rate, such as facing a biased family law system.
She says: “It’s both alarming and heartbreaking that so many of our social systems prevent men from getting the help and support they so desperately need. Every day I hear another story of a man who’s lost absolutely everything, often facing unproven accusations of violence and abuse.”

Bonney is on a high after hosting a recent Melbourne screening of The Red Pill, one of many I’ve organised through Fan-Force, a system that allows people to host local screenings of movies of their choice.

“We had nearly 200 people, including young women, couples and of course many men. There were a few tears and much applause before and after it ended. There’s a real sense that at last men’s issues are getting the attention they deserve,” says the delighted Bonney.
One can also give honourable mention to Bettina Arndt and Corinne Barraclough: one who has been at the battlements for many years and the other a fresh and vigorous reinforcement.  

And of course our own lovely Jasmin Newman. 

I could fill an entire wall with the photos and trophies of such fine women. 

Women can get traction on the battlefield where men cannot. They are fine allies. They bring different ways of using the weapons of Truth and their own perspectives. 

For now though, let us raise a glass to them and all those who follow.


Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Things we Know but Don't Know We Know

It was a quiet evening and I overheard it while wandering between bars. That, you understand, is between bars in the Tavern. You would automatically assume that people do not wander between the bars of a cell.  And I didn't overhear the quiet evening either and you knew that too. You assume I am about to talk about something I overheard on the quiet evening.

There is so much we seem to automatically 'know'.  There was an American  political chap a while back who got himself and some reporters quite mixed up when talking about Intelligence matters. That is, Intelligence in the spying sense, not the Mensa sense. 

You knew that too.

"There are things we don't know that we don't know we don't know". He said. "And things we don't know that we do know we don't know." You can fill the rest in yourself. If you have the perspective.

And I had some things brought into my 'Know now' box that I knew but didn't know I knew. It was something being said by a chap - Mark Forsyth - who makes it his job to study some matters.

Here's something : A Chinese child can converse in quite passable Chinese (Mandarin, Hokkien, whatever) by the time he or she is four.  He and his sister have picked up a lot of words and figured how to put them together: they have grasped quite complex linguistic skills without ever having sat in a classroom and been whacked over the knuckles by a schoolmarm with a ruler.

When we are learning, we need to be very careful.

English kiddies too. Not speaking Mandarin, of course, but a far more complex language. English. I did that. I could speak quite easily by four but had no knowledge available to my understanding that allowed me to do so. It is still largely the case.

Feminists and 'Progressives' have an even poorer understanding of what they say, but choose to do the knuckle-rapping whenever they can. 

They schoolmarm from morn to nigh on night, punishing wherever and whenever they can. No wonder folk are reluctant to learn. And they of course do not have to. 

They know they know everything already.

So to Mark, whom I found to be quite entertaining. So much so that I gave him free drinks all evening. He touched upon some of.......

The Language Rules we Know – 
but don’t know we know.
Over [a] weekend, [some time ago] I happened to go viral. Or rather a single paragraph from a book I wrote called The Elements of Eloquence went viral. The guilty paragraph went like this:
Adjectives in English absolutely have to be in this order: 
opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose Noun. 
With 'Number' at the start, he added. 

I can remember quite a bit from my schooling, but not having been taught this. Mind you, I played truant quite a lot.
So you can have a lovely little old rectangular green French silver whittling knife. But if you mess with that word order in the slightest you’ll sound like a maniac. 
It’s an odd thing that every English speaker uses that list, but almost none of us could write it out.”
English speakers love to learn this sort of thing for two reasons. First, it astonishes us that there are rules that we didn’t know that we knew. That’s rather peculiar, and rather exciting. 
We’re all quite a lot cleverer than we think we are. And there’s the shock of realising that there’s a reason there may be little green men on Mars, but there certainly aren’t green little men. 
Second, you can spend the next hour of your life trying to think of exceptions, which is useful as it keeps you from doing something foolish like working.
As long as you keep drinking, eh? 
Actually, there are a couple of small exceptions. Little Red Riding Hood may be perfectly ordered, but the Big Bad Wolf seems to be breaking all the laws of linguistics. Why does Bad Big Wolf sound so very, very wrong? What happened to the rules?
Ding dong King Kong
Well, in fact, the Big Bad Wolf is just obeying another great linguistic law that every native English speaker knows, but doesn’t know that they know. And it’s the same reason that you’ve never listened to hop-hip music.
You are utterly familiar with the rule of .......
ablaut reduplication. 
You’ve been using it all your life. It’s just that you’ve never heard of it.
Yeah, even unto Americans ! 
But if somebody said the words zag-zig, or cross-criss you would know, deep down in your loins, that they were breaking a sacred rule of language. 
You just wouldn’t know which one.
All four of a horse’s feet make exactly the same sound. But we always, always say clip-clop, never clop-clip. 
Every second your watch (or the grandfather clock in the hall makes the same sound) but we say tick-tock, never tock-tick. You will never eat a Kat Kit bar. The bells in Frère Jaques will forever chime ‘ding dang dong’.
Reduplication in linguistics is when you repeat a word, sometimes with an altered consonant (lovey-dovey, fuddy-duddy, nitty-gritty), and sometimes with an altered vowel: bish-bash-bosh, ding-dang-dong. 
If there are three words then the order has to go I, A, O
If there are two words then the first is I and the second is either A or O. Mish-mash, chit-chat, dilly-dally, shilly-shally, tip top, hip-hop, flip-flop, tic tac, sing song, ding dong, King Kong, ping pong.
Why this should be is a subject of endless debate among linguists. 
It might be to do with the movement of your tongue or an ancient language of the Caucasus. It doesn’t matter. It’s the law, and, as with the adjectives, you knew it even if you didn’t know you knew it. And the law is so important that you just can’t have a Bad Big Wolf.
It’s astonishing quite how expert you are at the English language. There are so many tenses you can use without even thinking about it, and almost certainly without being able to name them. It depends how you count them, but there are about 20 that you deploy faultlessly. 
Every child learning Latin or French or almost any other language works up a sweat learning 'Tenses'. 

Many furrin languages even have gendered words.  Masculine and Feminine. In fact 'Gender' is to do with words and nothing to do with genitals.

Feminists don't know that. 
The pluperfect progressive passive for an extended state of action that happened to you prior to another action in the past, is, when you put it like that, rather daunting.
You might need to read that again. I shall pull a pint for you and wait. 
But then you’d happily say “I realised I’d been being watched” without breaking sweat or blinking. 
Think how daunting this is for people learning English. The teacher has to explain to them that... 
the English don’t usually use the present tense for things that are happening in the present. 
“I brush my teeth” doesn’t mean that you’re doing it right now, it just means that you do it regularly. 
For things that are actually happening right now you use the present progressive “I’m brushing my teeth” (but only if you can speak with your mouth full).
Progressives do not know the meaning of their self-label either ! 
And having learnt that you then have to learn that there are certain exceptions, like the verb ‘to think’ used as an auxiliary, as in “I think you’re right”. This is why, incidentally, lots of non-native speakers will use phrases like “I am thinking that you are right”. 
It sounds faintly comic to us, but we had years and years and years of immersion learning just to get all these subtleties. 
And English is complex and weird. We actually have a tense called the Future Present. Imagine having to learn that. But for us it’s just “The train leaves tomorrow.”
Some rules we really should know. It’s surprising and dispiriting how many English people don’t know the rules of stress, [particularly Americans ! ]because that’s how all our poetry works. It’s quite easy really, and we can hear it in other languages. 
Everyone knows that Italian has rhythm, it goes MAM-a MI-a BUON-a SER-a. But so does our language. And that’s how verse works. I can illustrate with my favourite limerick (or at least my favourite clean one). Try reading this aloud:
There was a young man from Dundee
Got stung on the leg by a wasp
When asked does it hurt
He said ‘Yes it does.
‘I’m so glad it wasn’t a hornet.’
That has no rhymes, but it still works as a limerick because rhymes aren’t nearly as important as rhythm. And the rhythm goes:
de-DUM-de, de-DUM-de, de-DUM
de-DUM-de, de-DUM-de, de-DUM
de-DUM-de, de-DUM
de-DUM-de, de-DUM
de-DUM-de, de-DUM-de, de-DUM-de
Which only works because we know to pronounce Dundee as ‘dun-DEE’, and not to rhyme with Grundy or the Isle of Lundy.
Ask an American to say the name 'Robin Hood'. Try not to snigger. 
It’s the subtle difference when we record a record or present a present or tell a rebel to rebel. 
It’s a difference that is very hard for people to learn, and is the main reason that, in a strong French accent, 
there’s no difference between happiness and a penis.
English is an immensely complicated language to get right, and native speakers often have no idea of its strangeness. We understand the sentence “I can’t put up with the guy I’m putting up at my house, his put-downs really put me out and I’m feeling put-upon”. 
Or “I’m doing up my house and it’s doing me in.” Literally, that should mean “I’m performing my house skywards and it’s performing me towards the interior”. 
These are called phrasal verbs and they are the nightmare of every would-be English speaker. Somebody once said of Ian Fleming that he got off with women because he couldn’t get on with them. To us that’s a simple joke, to a learner who also has to get through, get by, get down, get with it, get up… it does their head in.
English is largely made up of the rules we don’t know that we know. 
And actually the rules we know we know are a rarity. We can cling to a few of them at least. At least we all know that we know that adjectives have comparatives and superlatives. Big, bigger, biggest. Hot, hotter, hottest. Easy, easier, easiest. It’s comforting. It’s reliable. It’s something we know that we know.
But can you do it with an adjective that’s three syllables long?
Curiouser and curiouser.

The lad deserves his pints.


Character and Muscle

The Warrior practices 'manly arts' and old warriors can take note of how the younger, far fitter and more active men are coming along. In my day a chap received his 'tap and slap' when he had proven not just his mettel but his adult, refined and tempered Character. There are many such processes these days and just as in days past we lay bets predicting who will be so lifted as to become models for the Squires. 

Consider Boxing.

So it was some weeks ago that a gentleman customer considered the contenders in a fight. For fighting is what Warriors do. And how he fights, how he persists under enormous pressure, how he conducts himself, marks the Treuwe Knight.

An aside note: This is perhaps one for the Ladies. I am well aware that men can be 'eye candy' when superbly fit, with a finely honed muscular physique.  So the ladies in the Tavern were quite interested in watching the unfolding boxing match.

So, how did Roger Alton do in his assessment? How did the contenders do. Let us see.
The age of Joshua
Every so often comes a moment that can set the history of sport on a different trajectory. I believe we will witness such a moment on Saturday when Anthony Joshua, of Golders Green no less, fights the veteran Wladimir Klitschko for the Heavy-weight Championship of the World. At Wembley Stadium, not a Las Vegas car park. This is a battle of the ages and for the ages, and it is right here in London.
For those of us who were glued to barely audible radios at 3am to hear epic US fights or flogged around seedy London cinemas for a live transmission, the romance, the magic and the brutal beauty seems to have gone out of the heavyweight game. The story of Muhammad Ali, and the brilliant film of his Rumble in the Jungle, When We Were Kings, now feels like a romantic confection. But it wasn’t.
Who can forget seeing the writers George Plimpton and Norman Mailer rising open-mouthed in awe, as we all did when we watched the film, when Ali dropped George Foreman in the eighth, having exhausted him in the heat of the Zaire night with his ‘rope-a-dope’ courage. It is the best sporting documentary ever made and justly won an Oscar in 1996: both Ali and Foreman went to the awards. They had long buried their differences and Foreman helped Ali on to the stage. It is a brutal sport, but a noble one.
Joshua and Klitschko, these two gentleman giants, literally, can bring it all back before 90,000 spectators and millions of viewers. 
Klitschko is a colossus, immensely dignified and a great ambassador for boxing. He has won 53 fights by knockout and spent an average of 15 minutes in the ring over all his fights. 
But he is 41: superbly fit of course, but that is one hell of an age. 
Joshua — AJ — is just 27, the 2012 Olympic champion, hugely courteous and respectful of Klitschko, as his opponent is to him. 
Joshua has fought 18 times as a pro and won 18, all by knockout, the majority in the first two rounds. His average time in the ring is just six minutes. 
Klitschko is the experienced one and, if he can drag the fight out, there might be doubts about the younger man’s stamina and fight-savvy. But I cannot see it getting that far.
Joshua is impossibly handsome, charismatic and charming. And polite with it, always learning about the fight game, reading about fighters, reading business books.
He had a troubled youth: run-ins with the police, drugs, a bit of ABH, though anyone trying to mix with him needs certifying. Through it all has been his Nigerian mother Yeta, always overjoyed to see him at her home in north London as the line of awards on her mantelpiece grows ever longer. 
Joshua might just be the man to revive the romance and glamour, and the glory of biff and bash.
I think he will win on Saturday and win quickly. 
He will then be on course to be one of the world’s richest sportsmen, rated alongside the great British heavyweights — Frank Bruno, Henry Cooper, Lennox Lewis — and comparable to many of the world’s greatest. 
He impresses as a person and, as a fighter, he is getting classier and deadlier. Global greatness beckons.
There is of course Character and 'a character'. We must know the difference.
More than 20 years ago Martin Amis wrote a brilliant New Yorker article bemoaning calls for more tennis ‘personalities’. For personalities, he said, read ‘assholes’. The perfect example then was Ilie Nastase, and here he is again at the Fed Cup shambles, vilely abusing Britain’s women players. Arthur Ashe recalled Nastase called him ‘negroni’ to his face and ‘nigger’ behind his back. The much-married Romanian is a ghastly man, who liked to pitch up in the royal box at Wimbledon in some insane Ruritanian general’s uniform, plus medals. 
Ho-ho, what a character.
Though he did have one good joke: when asked by police why he did not report the theft of his wife’s credit card, he said: ‘Because the thief is spending much less than she does.’
So, we put it on the Tavern Tele to see if Roger was right.

Here are the highlights for the ladies to drool over and the chaps to fantasise that it is themselves in the ring. 

So now you know. 

And what did these two gentlemen say about it? The interviews afterward are always as revealing of character as the fights themselves. One has to take a few verbals from garrulous commentators, of course.

First Wlad. "Coulda, woulda, shoulda."

And young Joshua. "Character always shows."

 Pints on the Top Table for both fine men.