Take My Wife — Please

Joe finds ‘bizarre’ a man resenting his ex-wife dating a rival.

Bizarre, is it?

I would have called it ‘universal human behaviour’.

Joe, the fat, nervous Palestinian Maronite greaser, may favour wife-sharing, but most Australians do not.

Leave a comment ?


  1. “Joe” lives near me. He is a Shiite. He has 4 ‘wives’. They are his 1st cousins. It is “his duty, to ensure the family name continues & remains of pure blood”, he told me. “Joe” is an idiot.

    Talk about fear of foreigners.

  2. At the risk of bringing the ‘Wrath of Ellis’ down on my head, I cannot be a hypocrite and bitch about the use of the word, ‘cunt’, and not take exception to Hockey being described as a ‘greaser’.

    It is a nasty import of a word.

    In this context it doesn’t mean mechanic, or long haired motorcycle rider.

    I understand the seething righteousness. I understand the rage at these malevolent clowns, who claim the right to call themselves our government. I understand the reasons for pointing out Hockey’s particular hypocrisy. His name anglicised, his heritage excised, for convenience. To get on. To get on with a crowd more inclined, you would hope, to call a man (who’s father is an Armenian Palestinian) a ‘greaser’.

    As a plain descriptor the word might fit Abbott, who is far more oiled, shiny and slimy. Why is it reserved for Hockey?

    I like this site. However, if the cost of expressing my thoughts, especially when they don’t coincide with that of the host, is silence, then it is too great a price to pay.

    • I always thought that ‘greaser’ was a name of members of American street gang culture, nothing too bad at all, what we saw in James Dean movies, greased hair, tight jeans and fitting white t-shirts…

      Those boys might have been from immigrant families ,but they were also ordinary all American youths…

      And some of those thick curly hairs of say Italian boys needed more grease to style it correctly..

      I feel sorry for the mums who had wash those greasy pillowcases of their greaser sons…

    • “His name anglicised, his heritage excised, for convenience. To get on.”

      Why was there a need for the family to anglicise their surname to get on; that says just as much about Australia as it says about the Hockey family.

      I would have never dreamed of changing my foreign names, deny my heritage in the name of getting on…

    • I always thought it the perfect word for a cheap spiv.
      A cheap spiv in a suit, describes Sloppy Joe to a tee. Perfect word I thought, Bob.

      Joe: seemingly the smiling buffoon on the surface, a cold calculating assassin beneath, plotting to strip the assets from those beneath him, the unwashed ‘bogans’.

      I see Joe as the Herman Goering of this Fascist Liberal Party.

      • “A cheap spiv in a suit, describes Sloppy Joe to a tee.” Then why not say that?

        How is, “Joe, the fat, nervous Palestinian Maronite greaser..” the same thing?

        Any man can be a cheap spiv in a suit, not so, a fat…Palestinian Maronite greaser.

        Quite clearly, “greaser” is a racial epithet in this usage.

        Why be so coy?

        In American parlance it means ‘wop’ or ‘wetback’. In Australian slang, “wog”. You know the contextual usage. We all know. Even if we pretend we don’t. “That greasy wog”, or “that greaser”.

        ” What an Italian greaser.”, “What an Arab greaser”, “What a Maltese greaser”.

        A kid in a playground can be a “greaser”, but not a “cheap spiv”.

      • No! Never! Herman could count!

  3. Yeah, K.bites, actually mechanics I’ve known have not tended to like being called greasers or the like. In a factory setting its something those electrician “knights whose armour does not squeak” like to tease them with……

    Anyway, obviously when you are trying to insult someone, to hurt their feelings, you go for a term that is offensive by their values not by yours. This is quite different from trying to bring down social condemnation on someone; using a racial epithet to do that is an appeal to racists and should be distinguished from using a racial epithet to trigger their own internalised racial loathing….

    Of course this raises the question of whether it is worthwhile trying to hurt Hockey’s feelings.

    Random thoughts, this blog is always good for that…….

    • JD,

      So, “Sol, the fat, nervous, Palestinian Hassidic, yid.” is OK because you are trying to inflame his self loathing, but you are not trying to bring down social condemnation? 

      So the insult doesn’t apply to other “yids”. They need not worry.

      Thank God we have white men to sort out all the rules!

      • Kb, there was so much ugliness dished at Gillard from the press, from the Coalition, that I can’t get upset about Hockey been called ‘greaser’, even if I find Joe the least offensive of the Abbott team.
        Julia was Juliar, she was Bob Brown’s bitch, her father should be ashamed of her, her hair colour was all wrong, her bottom too big, even her smart eyewear was no good etc, etc, relentlessly…

        I think the coalition behaved badly in opposition, and now they have taken it to an even more damaging level, and they have expanded to upset our neighbours.

      • Don’t think I commented on its OKness K.bites!

        • Yes you did, JD. It is implicit in your post. “Different” and “distinguished” give conditional approval for usage.

          • Who sets those conditions is the question.

          • No they don’t K.bites. They just mean what they say.

            Not everyone stops to continually pass judgement you know K.bites. ( I bet you are now stopping to say to yourself “If that’s true – is it a good thing or a bad thing”). An ostrich is to be distinguished from a duck, whether an ostrich is better than a duck or vice versa or neither are separate questions…..which doesn’t even have to ask, necessarily.

            • What if the ostrich is being distinguished from another ostrich? Doesn’t that say more of the person making the distinction?

  4. I’ve known a few wives I would have liked to share. Maybe something to be said for it.

    • I mean for some men jealousy is a genuine visceral emotion but I think it is often also more of a social expectation. The attitude attributed to the Sioux chief towards his young wife’s amours “She’s not made of soap and she won’t wear out” is not unknown and might well be more commonly expressed if it was socially validated……

      • Patriarchy has many forms, being willing to lend your wife to a friend; being inaanely, murderously jealous if she even looks at another man – the human mind is endlessly flexible, and both those attitudes can be fitted seamlessly and unthinkingly into the partiarchal masculine superiority paradigm

        • it’s not about sex, love, etc; it’s about power, with the sex, love etc added into the mix according to taste and tradition

          • Not about sex or love, you say. All about power. Billions now living and billions now dead would disagree with you. And the author of ‘The Beautiful Tennessee Waltz’.

            • Hard to disagree with that, comrade.

              It’s too early in the day to be sinking the slipper as the cries of kookas, crows and butcher birds fill the background, but yes, salmon’s observation that the mind is an endlessly flexible phenomenon is the nub, the rest of his comments a salmagundi of his unique perspective.

              The same for Jeremy Dixon’s parsing of the reality of jealousy into either viscerality or social expectation, tosh, pure and simple.

            • Power is the third player in this delicate and febrile burletta Bob, and any discussion of love or sex or human relations or the human heart without power as the third voice is an incomplete discussion; it is no discussion at all.

              At its core lies the notion of Subject: both in isolation (as bearer, capacity, and potential) and as an element within that infinite web of (social, political, ethical) relations.

              Bean counting billions to one side of the ledger is irrelevant.


              Bob, where are the archives?

            • I’m as susceptible as the next man to the Tennessee Waltz, especially in memory played on a 78 with a much used steel needle

              But on the patriarchy, I’m afraid its a case of none so blind.

              Patriarchy is indeed about power. Of course human life has lots of other far more important things in it.

              But patriarchy uses those things to disguise itself, and consequently those things get distorted, especially for those who do not recognise the power of power in their own motivations

    • To a great extent it reflects the spouse’s insecurities. One who is confident of his or her own worthiness will have less concern about a partner’s straying.

      But jealousy is a strange beast.

      • Well yeah, sexual jealousy is often mostly about loss of status innit. So the very secure may not feel it, or feel it less.

        And as for being jealous of ex-wives, in the words of Kipling:

        If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath/
        To shoot when you catch ‘em – you’ll swing, on my oath! -/
        Make ‘im take ‘er and keep ‘er: that’s Hell for them both/
        An’ you’re shut o’ the curse of a soldier

  5. Helvi, thank you for that.

  6. Bob
    I once wrote to you about your abuse of Mr Hockey and others with racial vilification and bullying about body image.

    Yes he’s vile, a Tory with views I detest, but what has his father’s place of birth got to do with his politics?

    His mother is Armenian, his father born in Palestine. How many Labor people have parents born in the middle-east or near east?

    And I don’t mean to be personal, but last time I saw you at Aussie’s you looked pretty fat to me.

    Play the ball, not the man.

    PS, speaking of Palestinians, are you going to apologise for saying Mossad killed Arafat when French experts said he died of natural causes.

    I await your retraction.

    • Staffer, ask the Liberals to take back all the nasty things they have said about Labor politicians. They are masters at dishing abuse, now be a man and cop it sweetly.

    • I suspect the French report was probably written before the samples were tested. He died in a French hospital, after being treated by French doctors who had said they were unable to diagnose what ailed Arafat. I seem to recall they actually suspected poisoning at one stage & tested him for presence of commonly known poisons. Not found. The French Republic would never allow its doctors & pathologists to be seen as either complicit or incompetent. if they could stop it.

      Russian whistleblower claimed months ago the Russian results had been rewritten for political reasons & the report finally released widely rubbished in scientific circles.

      The Swiss were probably the only group of the three without a known vested interest in the results. So why dismiss their results?

      Arafat & Kennedy will forever remain Whodunits, I suspect. Unless of course, the Palestinian’s own current investigation into the possibility one of Arafat’s close attendents drip fed him.

      Everywhere one looks, motive, suspicion, but no proof.

    • No, Mossad killed Arafat, as the IDF killed his lieutenants around him with relentless bombardment of his compound. Where else did the polonium come from? Who had the motive if not Israel? Who had the means?

      I was trying to explain by his polygamous Arab origins Joe’s weird idea that men should not be jealous of their ex-wives’ lovers, and by his complaisant fatness. If he does not care who his wife goes on dates with, well, that is fine, but it is more appropriate to his Middle Eastern birth-culture than Australia’s, and this is worth mentioning.

      If he is Treasurer he should not have unAustralian priorities and lo, he does.

      Yes, I am fat, and was for many years in these matters complaisant as Joe, but I am of Middle Eastern descent also, and was more inclined to unjealous wife-sharing in the sixties and seventies (as is well known) than the average Australian. But I am aware of my cultural difference and Joe is not.

      His idea that Labor are now the ‘economic fringe-dwellers’ is pretty wrong too. Labor maintained a triple-A rating throughout a big recession, and Liberals, in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, lost the triple-A rating Labor had bequeathed them.

      Liberals get the big things wrong, as a rule. Even Weary Dunlop’s nickname.

      I ask you who you are Staffer to. I think you are a Liberal, and dissembling.

      • Thanks Bob, but I’m no Liberal, that’s the worst insult ever hurled!

        His comment about ex-wives was very much in the Keating style and doesn’t require analysis or deconstruction. Like when Shorten called Bronwyn Bishop his “mentor” – hardly think that was a serious comment.

        Anyway, glad to read the French forensic experts are so wrong. Never can trust the French, they’re full of garlic and can’t fight and their art is too up-tempo. And some of their film directors are just posers. :lol:

        • If you can’t spell ‘poseurs’ in the French way when criticising the French you are as poor a diplomat as your Liberal employer.

          Why would their forensics be wrong? Why would a death so convenient to the Israelis be coincidental?

          It’s like saying LBJ, on hearing of his coming demotion, had no thought of shooting JFK.

          But he had the means, the motive, the town, the power to change the auto route …

          Sharon just wanted to blow up Arafat’s lieutenants, is that it?

          No thought for the prime target at all.

          • Got me there Mr Ellis. I must be a Liberal because I express a different view on the merits of calling someone a fat Palestinian greaser.

            And, by your logic and argument, you must be a member of the Labor Party. Which Sub-Branch comrade?

            • Staffer, you got angry on Hockey’s behalf, yet you did not say anything when I listed some of the insults heaped on Gillard.
              Why would Hockey be insulted when called Palestinian/Armenian? And greaser is hardly an insult. You can call me a Finnish or Fenno-Scandinavian greaser anytime, even if happen to be a woman :smile:


  7. If Mossad’s Polonium did not actually kill Arafat, and natural causes got him first, then it wasn’t for lack of trying.

    By way of analogy, if I shoot you five times but you actually die of a chicken bone caught in your throat . . .

    • Nice one … Rasputin apparently died from drowning in the Neva River after his body (riddled with enough poison to kill a horse, multiple knife and gunshot wounds) was shoved under the ice by Prince Yusupov & Co.

      So who killed Rasputin?

    • Yes, everyone dies of heart or respiratory failure. Natural causes.

      Especially after fronting s firing squad.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>