Inequality, self-destructing women and a sense of humour

For some reason, I’ve become a magnet for material about wimmin, which is not where I want to be placed because I respect and admire the wimmin I know in real life – there are just some things they shouldn’t be involved in, that’s all.

This has obviously been misinterpreted by some whose only colours are black and white and most certainly not appreciated by feminazis whose defining characteristics include an utter inability to take a joke or any valid criticism – after all, humour is largely based on truth in the first place, as all the best comedians know.

Then there are the alpha guys who are naughty because they’re trying to get me into trouble with the girls and they know if anyone’s going to publish their scurrilous scuttlebutt, it’s me.   Plus their serious articles, of course.

Then there are the women whom I call real women – the ones I deal with in real life, even adminning the blogs and these ladies are the goods – capable of anything and I’m proud to be accepted by them.   What they make of all my anti-feminazi stuff I don’t know – they never say anything.

In my eyes, they go up even further because they can obviously take a ribbing and a joke [the standard male way], they’re feminine in that capable way I so admire and they bring a much-needed female perspective.   In short, they’re enjoyable and vital to good health.   Alluring too.

So, without any further ado, this from Lord Somber:

The gravest danger facing young women is?

English columnist Esther Rantzen watched a TV documentary which followed the work of the emergency services and was shocked by the behaviour of the young women on display:

The central focus of this shocking, despairing documentary shot with the emergency services in Blackpool is that the gravest danger facing young girls, right here in Britain, right now in 2012, is not from a stranger or a violent partner, but from themselves.

She continues:

More young women than ever are deliberately crippling themselves with binge drinking, putting themselves in real peril by fighting and carrying knives, and using their fists and foul language as offensive weapons.

And I have to ask, echoing that police officer and speaking as a mother of daughters myself, where are the mothers of these loutish, brutalised girls?

These extremely young women seem so determined to self-destruct that it makes me wonder if they ever had a loving role model — namely, their own mother.

…Is it because they have been brought up to believe themselves to be so utterly valueless that they numb themselves with huge quantities of strong drink, spending £100 a night if they have it, drinking ten or 12 glasses of ‘Jager Bomb’ until they vomit or pass out and have to be rescued?

…Most shocking is the violence perpetrated by some of these girls. They don’t just hurt themselves, they injure others.

…The Channel 4 documentary showed men with blood running down their faces, stabbed by women who the police said habitually carried knives, ‘like mobile phones’, said one officer, ‘in their handbags’


Let’s move on.

Where are all of Britain’s powerful women?

Cameron’s latest Cabinet reshuffle pushes UK down the international gender-equality league

Gender equality is an utter w**k.   Whatever happened to the principle of “whoever is best for the job”?   Or do women need draconian government legislation to make them more “equal”?

One of the things which really got up the nose of Christy O whose vid I often run was not inequality – she takes that as read in the physical area – but the false equalization which requires artificial measures and her motivation is noble:

She wants to either genuinely compete or not at all.

She needs no artificial measures such as this next rubbish and I agree with her.

‘Historic’ Supreme Court victory for women in the fight for equal pay

Ruling in favour of 170 former Birmingham City Council employees will open door to others

There was an immediate response from readers, e.g.

I worked for a council who thought the best way to make the wages equal was to cut the wages of their male staff i.e. binmen gardeners road sweepers instead of taking the womens wages up.i lost 3000 pound a year and womens wages stayed the same but the consultants raked it in.

And that included women themselves:

Leandra Shamen

As a woman, I agree with the male posters before me, I am all for equal rights, but it has to be made equal in all ways.

I personally feel we women shouldn’t get maternity pay, or paid time off for having kids, or get any special treatments because we are women, then expect to be paid same as men.

Like when I did security work, I did the full 12 hour shifts, same rate of pay, had to deal with male youths, wasnt easy, but I did my job just as well as any of the guys, and yeah, got the usual whistles at times, and odd sexiest comments, but hey, I just gave it back.

So come on us girls, if you want equal pay, then ya gotta have equal everything else too.


Wiggia sends me the Beeb piece on the suffragettes.    Interesting that Suzie wrote the other day that “we’re not all harridans”.   Well obviously you aren’t, Suzie – you’re Mrs. Gorgeous – but consider Exhibit A:

… and Exhibit B:

… along with the same old chestnut:

Kate Pankhurst said that despite the progress on many fronts since then, women still only made up about a quarter of MPs.  “That really is just not good enough and it needs to change,” she told the BBC.

When are you harpies going to get it through your skulls that there are reasons why.

One of those is that there are people, human beings, with families they’re supporting, already in those jobs and they got there by going through the promotions process people have always had to go through.   So it should be.

For some sort of quota to be fulfilled, many of those people will lose their jobs on a faux construct and for no other good reason.   So you are happy to throw perfectly good people, doing perfectly good work, onto the scrapheap for a faux notion of promoting incompetents to fulfil a quota.

Is that insane or is that insane?

A second reason is that by behaving this way, you Harmanesque monstrosities, you are actually damaging the cause of women, just as you’ve damaged it all the way along the line.

Women have overequality at this time, i.e. the male is discriminated against everywhere and I can get source material on this in a few seconds.   And remember, it was not in response to your harping on but the male sense of fairness which got women where they are now in real terms in the society.

As a result of your harping and as a result of the government coming in behind this with the sledgehammer, it’s p***ed off men no end and the result is that an attitude of fairness towards women has been turned into a quiet determination to block them at every turn.

It’s only logical.   If I invite you to my home for afternoon tea, that’s one thing but for shrill harpies and the government to insist I allow you into my home, you can get on yer bike, love.    And as you see in this hypothetical case, the victim is the innocent guest who never said anything in the first place, other than “I’d love to accept your invitation.”

That is what it’s all about.   Women, your worst enemies are:

1.  feminazis;
2.  your sisters;
3.  yourselves.

As for men – most I know are pretty reasonably minded guys most of the time – they have their moments, sure and can’t be badgered and henpecked but those are minor character flaws.   If I was to criticize many of the men I know, it would be for chronic infidelity and untidiness around the home but I know an equal number who are the most faithful husbands and partners and untidy around the home.

10 comments for “Inequality, self-destructing women and a sense of humour

  1. October 25, 2012 at 12:21

    ‘…where are the mothers of these loutish, brutalised girls?’

    The question Esther Rantzen should be asking is ‘where were their mothers twenty years ago?’

    It was around that time that a strident guest on Radio 4 declared that Britain now had the highest proportion in Europe of mothers of under-5s in the workplace and that this was a great step forward.

    In many ways I would call myself a feminist but this made my blood boil as, being at home with my own baby, I was in a position to appreciate how much adult contact a baby needs. I was also living in an area with one of the UK’s highest rates of unemployment.

    My neighbour had just lost his job in retail management and, to make ends meet, his wife had started childminding; he looked after their own children while his wife cared for the young baby of a woman who was doing the job he had been trained for, involving long hours and late evenings.

    It wasn’t an ideal situation for anyone, but the biggest loser in all this, surely, was the baby who effectively only saw her mother for one day a week. Fortunately for her, my neighbour was a conscientious and intelligent woman who brought her up well – I can’t imagine all children minded that way are so lucky.

    I’m not saying that all mothers must stay at home – though my own personal opinion is that, having brought a child into the world, I have a responsibility to be constantly present until it is capable of a certain level of conscious reasoning – but that the expectation that children are packages to be left until called for may not be unconnected with a lack of self-respect in young adults.

  2. amfortas
    October 25, 2012 at 12:40

    Harriet Harman as ‘The feminist’.

    The feminist Harman argues in the kitchen

    Feminist: “Stove, you burned the Pot Roast!!”

    Stove: “No I Didn’t! You turned up the burner too high and proceeded to drink a bottle of wine and forgot because you got tanked!”

    Feminist: “Yes you did! You control the heat because you are a stove, a vindictive one!!”

    Stove: “I’m not the one with fingers and thumbs you Lush!”

    Feminist: “You’re a male stove aren’t you, you sexist pig!!”

    Stove: “I’m a stove, not a male or an animal. You’re not very bright, you are arguing with a household appliance.”

    Feminist: “You men just don’t get it, it’s not about you! It’s about us being systematically repressed by men for thousands of years!”

    Stove: “You are arguing with a metal box, made in Mexico who’s sole purpose is to cook and heat food.

    Feminist: “AHA! I knew it, you’re a sexist Hispanic macho pig!!”

    Stove: “*sigh* Have another bottle of Chardonnay my dear.

    Feminist: “Why?? So you can get me drunk and rape me??”

    Stove: “No, so you will get plastered and pass out.”

    Feminist: “You men are all alike. You want women to get drunk and pass out so you can rape them!! You fucking creep!”

    Stove: “Nope. Sorry my dear. I don’t have a penis. I am a stove.”

    Feminist: “You still want to rape me! I just know it!”

    Stove: “Ok, yes, you are right. I want to rape you and keep you subjugated and in the kitchen using me everyday because I am a patriarchal invention to keep you from attaining freedom from men’s dominance over women.

    Feminist: “You admit the truth? You see, even a stove can admit the truth with persuasion. This is a good day for women!”

    Stove: “You’re a complete moron, you are arguing with a metal box for goodness sake!”

  3. October 25, 2012 at 13:25

    Late one via Chuckles:

    Following a firestorm of negative feedback, CNN hastily deleted from its website late Wednesday virtually all mention of a study about the effect hormones have on women’s political preferences.

    Read more:

    This is more the topic for another post, not necessarily gender-related. There is a fundamental principle. If you, as a news service, put up a programme, it should be for the reason of creating discussion on that.

    If that was not your motivation, i.e. it was only to provoke, then the question is – was the info valid or was it not? If it was, then for whatever reason, it should be put. If it was not, then that should not see the light of day.

    However, to be swayed by “firestorm of protest” is the last thing which should be done.

    Yet again – was it factually correct, was it valid. If it was – then publish and be damned.


    There has been attack from some quarters that I always “think I’m correct”. No, what happens is this:

    1. There is an issue. I read the material.

    2. I go to other sources, particularly those detracting and try to ascertain where this thing is.

    3. I arrange all this yea and nay material in front of me and write the piece along those lines.

    4. Then I publish it.

    Therefore, at the point it is posted, it is correct. Not “I am correct” but the material which is correct is the only type which gets posted.

  4. October 25, 2012 at 16:42

    James, when you were a boy, did you always shove a stick into any wasp or hornet nest you passed?

  5. October 25, 2012 at 19:01

    Healthy “discussion”, Sackers.

  6. October 25, 2012 at 22:21

    Then there are the women whom I call real women – the ones I deal with in real life, even adminning the blogs and these ladies are the goods – capable of anything and I’m proud to be accepted by them. What they make of all my anti-feminazi stuff I don’t know – they never say anything.

    I often give you my opinion on the feminazi stuff. Does that mean that I am not a real woman?

  7. October 25, 2012 at 22:51

    You’re a real one, Cherie, with strange views on some things. 😉

  8. October 25, 2012 at 22:57

    So I think that makes us more or less equal then. We both have some strange views on some things 😉

  9. Wolfie
    October 26, 2012 at 00:38

    Yet bigger fish require frying.

  10. amfortas
    October 26, 2012 at 02:27

    Did you hear the one about the feminist and the fish-fryer?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *