Demetri Marchessini is a retired Greek business tycoon, living in London, and has been a major donor to the right-wing, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP). He also has some, let’s say, eccentric views about gay people, black people, women, and trousers, views so, er, eccentric that the folks in UKIP are a little embarrassed to be associated with him. Given that UKIP is filled with bigots in all varieties, that’s quite something.
In an interview last week with Britain’s Channel 4, Marchessini expounded at length on some of his more colorful views. He told interviewer Michael Crick that marital rape was impossible, because “you can’t have rape if you make love on Friday and make love on Sunday, you can’t say Saturday is rape. Once the woman accepts, she accepts.”
He argued that there is no such thing as homosexual love, only lust, because “they go out at nights and they pick up 5, 10, 15 different partners in one night.” Even gays in committed relationships are basically just roommates who still cruise for anonymous sex partners.
And he suggested that black slaves were better off as slaves in America than they would have been living in Africa, because if they survived the passage they lived longer.
But let’s just talk about the trouser thing. Marchessini thinks women should be banned from wearing trousers, because otherwise they just might bring about the end of western civilization.
No, really.
In a 2003 polemic with the innocent-sounding title Women In Trousers, Marchessini decried female trouser-wearing as “hostile behaviour – they are deliberately dressing in a way that is opposite to what men would like.”
In his interview last week, he explained just how hostile an act trouser-wearing really is. Here’s the whole discussion, from the extended transcript of the interview he posted on his website. I’m putting some of the best bits in bold, but, seriously, the whole thing is pure gold.
Michael Crick: You wrote this book about women wearing trousers. Explain your position there.
Demetri Marchessini: Well this is a very … there are quite a few reasons why women shouldn’t wear trousers. The point of the book, was that photographs of women on the street, they weren’t posed, women walking down the street, and the point of the book is they were all photographed from the rear, because women do not realise what they look like from the rear, they can’t see themselves from the rear. And they don’t realise how terrible they look from the rear. And this was just a series of photographs, of actual photographs of women walking by and a lot of people didn’t like this, because it’s become a political matter.
Michael Crick: So do you think women should be banned from wearing trousers?
Demetri Marchessini: Yes.
Michael Crick: What, by law?
Demetri Marchessini: They used to be, for thousands of years. Did you know that until two or three hundred years ago a woman wearing trousers would be executed? Did you know that?
Michael Crick: Well presumably you’re not advocating returning to that position?
Demetri Marchessini: No, but I am returning to thinking that this is an important matter, something to think about, whereas now they don’t think about it.
Michael Crick: And you think that women are unsuited to certain jobs?
Demetri Marchessini: Wait a minute, let’s just finish this thing.
Michael Crick: Sorry, yeah.
Demetri Marchessini: The first thing is the Bible. If you are a Christian the Bible says anyone who wears the clothes of the opposite sex is an abomination. If you’re a Christian woman you can’t be wearing trousers.
Michael Crick: I would have thought the vast majority of Christians in this country today would say that’s rubbish.
Demetri Marchessini: Well I’m sorry, they’re perfectly free to say the Bible is rubbish, but if you believe in the Bible you can’t wear trousers, it’s up to you to decide. Secondly, for thousands of years after that, it was a crime for both sexes and then eventually when they started wearing trousers, which was after the First War, there were several reasons not to wear trousers. The first is they don’t look as nice as skirts; the second is trousers don’t excite men. Only skirts excite men.
Michael Crick: Why should women dress to excite men?
Demetri Marchessini: Because that’s the only way the world is going to continue. If they don’t, then men are going to stop fucking them, you understand, and may I tell you, with great respect, that the incidence of lovemaking in Western Europe has fallen drastically.
Michael Crick: What, because women wear trousers?
Demetri Marchessini: Well I think that’s one factor. Another factor is because women work. The fact is if men don’t make love to women the Western world is going to disappear.
So Warren Farrell is angry at women for dressing (or undressing) to excite men; Demetri Marchessini is angry at them for not dressing to excite men.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering why women look so terrible from behind, Marchessini helpfully provides a link to another post on his blog which offers this explanation:
[N]ature has shaped women differently from men, and it is women who have curves, and as a result, big bottoms. Men are more straight up and down. It is women who are, therefore, invariably photographed for their bottoms. Furthermore, since women have started wearing trousers, this situation has become worse. Trousers are made for men’s bodies, not for women’s bodies. As a result, they highlight big bottoms. Nevertheless, women go on wearing them.
Evidently, he does not like big butts, and he cannot lie.
Big thanks to the trouser-wearing Titianblue for tipping me off to this important story.
Can we modify Falconer’s (?) We Will Mock You from an older thread for our theme song (I think it mentioned a specific troll, so we could make it more general)
I tend to prefer pants because they’re warm and comfy, but now that I know they ward off misogynists I like them even more!
Maybe we should add pants to the Welcome Package. The penguins are already wearing Spanx, so I’ll have to put the pants on the kitten.
Ooh…like a chastity belt?
Remember Sean Connery when he was a bit younger? In a kilt? Ahhhh…memories…
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MK8naAVdhI?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D
Frethrn seg antoyr etha magtawre. Welthrop gahastmor mi frampteh, rect?
OK, justabrowngirl. Thanks for the reply. I hope I didn’t offend you. I can see how I might have. I certainly did not mean to make the American slave trade seem less than, or invalidate your argument, or anything like that. I tend to blather on when I’m on my pain pills, as well as take everything very literally. Yes, the legal American slave trade did end when you said. I was getting technical about slavery in general, and that can come off as insulting. I’m very sorry. I’d probably agree with anything you had to say on the subject, anyway, when I’m sober, but that’s for some other thread. Please forgive me.
I watched a Marvel comics movie today (Captain America – Winter Soldier), and spent quite a bit of it quietly murmuring about how “technically, that’s inaccurate,” or “but, that doesn’t make any sense,” or “I don’t think that’s physically possible,” not to mention about fifteen minutes of “WHAT ABOUT HIS SHIELD!?” at the end of the movie. I was obsessed with the shield, for some reason. Like that was the most important thing in the whole show.
I’m not saying this as an excuse, but more of an explanation that I am quite odd when I’m on my “stupid pills.” That’s what I call them – my stupid pills, and I usually have a rule not to get online when I’m on my pain pills. However, I forgot, and got online, and made a fool of myself.
Why is it always “Western Civilization”? Like the rest of the world doesn’t matter. For that matter, shouldn’t “Western Civilization” include some of the south-west portions of the world, like Brazil and Argentina? I don’t remember studying them in my History of Western Civilization class. Which totally sucks. Because, they are just as “West” as USA and moreso than England or Germany.
Hmmm, it must be because they didn’t wear the right kind of clothes. Yeaaaah.
What kind of pants are the most misandric? Jeans? Black slacks? Pinstriped slacks? Khakis? Cords? Overalls? Big 90’s rave pants (Jenkos)? Leggings? Stirruped stretch pants from the 80’s? I wish there was a little clarification.
@samantha, what language is that? I’m having a hard time translating it.
Also, I second the desire for a theme song.
@weirwoodtreehugger – Based on the kerfuffle over leggings in school dress codes lately, I’d say they are the most “misandric.” I’ve read a lot of screeds about them, in particular, lately.
@Michelle C Young – Actually, it is not a language. I was concerned that, since I have not had a reply to any comments that I have made in the past couple of weeks, that something was wrong with either my computer or with my WordPress account and maybe I was the only one seeing my writing.
I know it sounds silly, but I thought that if no one responded to a nonsense post, there was something wrong on my end. Happily, the fact that someone (you) responded says that my computer and account are fine.
So your linguistic skills are okay.
Maybe I have become boring? Sigh.
Oooooooooookay.
Pleas for attention don’t look good on anyone.
@wwth
Also, given the fate of civilization is in the balance, the position on callots needs to be clarified. Do they count as pants? Do they count as skirts?
I wouldn’t want to initiate callot-based civilization collapse by accident.
Probably not (at least more wintry than it gets in Greece or London), but obviously he also doesn’t see women’s clothing as a practical consideration.
Generally you’d think trousers to be more revealing of the butt than a skirt. I suspect Marchessini actually has a skirt fetish, but can’t express it directly so he blathers something random about associated female body parts.
@wierdwoodtreehugger
“What kind of pants are the most misandric? Jeans? Black slacks? Pinstriped slacks? Khakis? Cords? Overalls? Big 90′s rave pants (Jenkos)? Leggings? Stirruped stretch pants from the 80′s? I wish there was a little clarification.”
No clue. But this whole thread brings to mind that I don’t have that many pairs of pants, mostly because it’s hard to find any that both a) fit me and b) look nice. I do wear the pants I have a lot tho. I guess I’m just a misandrist at heart :p
Wow I actually have no idea if I’m making sense, but to be fair I just woke up. Sorry
Silly J.J…women aren’t supposed to leave the house in winter. In fact, winter itself is misandric because it shrivels boners and makes people cover up. All women must live within 45 degrees latitude of the equator.
It’s always hilarious when these guys equate their libido with Western Civilization and make vaguely dire, apocalyptic threats tying the future of humanity to the state of their genitalia. “If I’m not personally aroused at all times, ladies, the ENTIRE WORLD could go kablooie at any moment! Is that what you want?”
Here are a few more gems from his blog:
Women who have “embraced promiscuity” have become “interchangeable goods”.
Single mothers are “naughty girls who deserve a good smack”.
“There is also another important reason why women do not receive respect from men. That is because men only respect manly qualities, and women do not have manly qualities.”
(Ed. note – except when they wear trousers.)
Women and men have the same average IQ but female brains are “not able to compete” when it comes to logic.
Hammer pants are the most misandric because you can’t touch this.
serrana: “The real danger of trousers is that a penguin mastermind criminal might use them for nefarious ends.”
Well, according to Marchessini, we ALL have nefarious ends.
“…black slaves were better off as slaves in America than they would have been living in Africa, because if they survived the passage they lived longer.”
I’m always amused by people who talk this crap as they are invariably the sort that claims they’d rather “die free than live a slave”.
Marchessini and NWO should have a conversation. They both believe very strongly that women should only wear skirts, but for entirely opposite reasons. Do you think they would fight it out? “All men are aroused by pants, and that is women’s cruelty!” “No! No men are aroused by pants! And that is women’s cruelty!”
HAHA wow. You don’t say, dear. May I tell you, with absolutely no respect at all, that the majority of my lovemaking is done in neither pants nor skirts?
Google is misandering again. The person of the day is Audrey Hepburn, who helped make boner-killing capri pants popular.
See_how_hideous_pants_are_on_a_woman?
Because the belief that women in pants will destroy western civilization is entirely logical. :/