Synchronised Wimmin.
The Labour Party has clasped the clitorally vulnerable victim-hood of the Feministas to its bosom and bitterly resents any attempt to portray an ideologically opposed female as representing ‘Feminism’ at any level. Witness last night’s riveting Newsnight battle between Louise Mensch and dear little Laura Penny, sometimes known as ‘PennyRed’ (for good reason).
Laura ‘there’s no reason why I shouldn’t sport a bloodstained rat over my left eye, I’m not to be judged on my hairstyle’ was off to a flying start of denigration, by pointing out that Oswald Mosley supported the Suffragettes ‘therefore it was possible to be both a Fascist and a Feminist’ – not that she was accusing Louise of being a Fascist, no, no, perish the thought. She just wanted us to know the association of Feminists, Fascists and Tories that lay in her mind. There was, she opined, such a thing as ‘wrong Feminism’, a lame opinion which rivals British Rail’s ‘wrong kind of snow’.
Louise ‘just because I pose for GQ magazine I shouldn’t be labelled Tory Tottie’ put up a spirited defence, more intelligent than I had previously given her credit for; neatly nipping Paxo round the ankles when he chastised her for straying from ‘the point’ and she belted back ‘I should know my place I suppose’. Indeed Louise. PennyRed can stray from the point because she is the right sort of Feminist in Paxo’s eyes, not the Nadine Dorries variety who want to give women a choice in the counselling they receive regarding abortion, but the sort who only display strength of mind on behalf of those victimised women who truly believe that sex and pregnancy is something which just ‘happens’ to them, inflicted on them by brutal uncaring men. It’s OK to be strong and opinionated on behalf of the vulnerable, but woe betide you should be strong and opinionated for your own sake.
The synchronised Feminista wimmin haven’t merely contented themselves with giving Newshite a chance to re-run old footage of ’1960s Tory women in hats’; in the past few days they have mounted a full frontal attack on the Leveson Inquiry. Tuesday saw the massed forces of Four groups – Eaves, End Violence Against Women, Object and Equality Now – hijack the end result of the Guardian’s claim that News of the World journalists had hacked ‘dead Milly’s phone’, thus setting in progress a sequence of events which resulted in 500 first class journalists and editors losing their jobs.
Now that the Guardian’s speculation has been found to have no evidence to support it, the massed harridans of the Left have abandoned their Feng Shui and candle making classes to badger poor Leveson into agreeing that ‘something must be done’ about the ‘highly sexualised images’ of women which appear in newspapers. They apparently have no objections to highly sexualised images of David Beckham in his knickers…..
First up was Marai ‘dedicated to the creation of an equal world. Committed to ending violence against women and girls’ Larasi, who seems to have no problem with violence against men in her equal world. She wanted a regulatory body set up to ensure that women were portrayed in a different light by the media.
Then we got Anna van Heeswijk, from Object, a lobby group against the ‘objectification’ of women. She wants legislation banning pictures of naked or semi-naked women in newspapers, arguing the images would not be allowed in the workplace because of equality legislation, and should not be sold in an “unrestrained” manner at “children’s eye-level”.
Leveson was dutifully polite, saying his powers were limited and such a change would require “rock-solid legislation”, thus neatly avoiding a caustic comment such as ‘this has naff all to do with this inquiry’ which would not have gone down well in the pages of the Guardian. The man deserves a medal.
All of these off-side assaults were enthusiastically cheered on during the day by a series of Tweets from the Boiler-Suit-In-Chief, Vera Baird.
She, of course, is smarting from the mighty smack down administered by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge who allowed the appeal by Jon-Jacques Clinton. Clinton will now face a retrial that can include the evidence that his wife’s ‘goading’ regarding her sexual infidelity can form a partial defence to a charge of murder. Vera was particularly proud of the legislation which stated that those accused of murder cannot use evidence that their victim was unfaithful to them as part of the reason why they snapped and killed them, she had no problem with the fact that women are allowed to use premenstrual tension as a mitigating factor in sentencing – testosterone is the ‘wrong sort of hormone’ and not an acceptable defence in her book.
They are such hypocrites these women, proud of their campaigning strength on behalf of the rest of the sisterhood which must remain dependant on them, and through them, the State. They want to see true equality as much as Diane ‘racist Tweets’ Abbott.
Good grief – I just noticed, Vera’s banging the ‘Female Bloggers Cry Rape’ tambourine.
Cause and effect Vera, cause and effect; if you, and dear little Laurie, want to bang on endlessly about men being such utter bastards that should be neutered at birth, you can expect them to respond, and yes, it is liable to be as sexist as your views were in the first place. Just as Diane Abbott is likely to engender racist comments to her racist Tweets, or those who claim superiority of one religion over another.
It’s not Equality the synchronised ‘wimmin’ are after, it’s Superiority.
Men should know their place. Test tube. Fridge. Now.
January 28, 2012 at 19:02I work with lots of women and we do a “difficult” job involving the public.
A lot of the women I work with are a higher grade than I am as well, so its
not a question of ” I’m the boss” do as I say, more I do as I’m told. All the
women I work with are great and you can trust them to watch your back and help
you. There is banter boyz v girlz but we all have a laugh at it and work as a
team.
To be honest , most of the lady ” Bosses” can be much worse to other
women than they can be to a man
Its not all like the feminista’s
portrait
January 27, 2012 at 20:55Wonderful piece, 9.9.
I look forward with glee to your critique of Bea Campbell and Polly
Twaddle.
January 27, 2012 at 11:36Nothing is as poisonous as a left wing ‘feminist’ , I quote because they
are the antithesis of actual equality.
And for gods sake ladies just
because your feminists doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to sport a mustache and
chin hairs.
January 27, 2012 at 11:53Mustaches are in these days – am rather proud of mine. It is a luxuious
handbar and I wax the points, all the better to twirl them as I tie a
helpless, weeping man to the train tracks………mwah hah hah hah!
January 27, 2012 at 19:52Even though I believed I was ever-vigilant with the Immac, recent
photographs assert that I habitually – if unwittingly – sport what I
recognise as a ‘Flash Harry’ (see George Cole in St Trinian’s if you
aren’t old enough to picture it) …What with my failing eyesight and diminished wits, I had interpreted
this slight emphasis of my top lip as an indication that I hadn’t quite
finished applying lip-liner-enhancement but now I see I was quite
mistaken.Oh the shame.
January 27, 2012 at 08:26Nice to see your back I’ sure! Another stimulating piece!
Spellings’s a
bit iffy though – it’s ‘wee-men’!!!Maynbrayce
January 26, 2012 at 21:39Why just David Beckham? Sure, he looks better in underpants than I do, but
I am sure that my wife could give me a list of another dozen who also do.
January 26, 2012 at 23:19Indeed, Beckham may have commendable pecs and sizable ‘junk’, but his
silly whining little voice let him down when ever he speaks.I’d rather look at Damian Lewis, (but with his clothes on).
January 27, 2012 at 09:36It *is* a silly voice isn’t it? Looks like adonis, sounds like a
childrens carrtoon character.
January 26, 2012 at 21:03Cant help seeing a photograph of twelve women posing and clutching
themselves strategically to conceal Those Areas That Society Rules We Should
Not See as a sign that we have a long way to go before any kind of reason
prevails.
January 26, 2012 at 20:56“The Labour Party has clasped the clitorally vulnerable victim-hood of the
Feministas to its bosom…”That is comic genius and most amusing if you imagine Red Ed actually doing
this with the aid of Hariet Harperson.Anna, I would salute you if you were man. I physically laughed out loud at
that opening sentence.
January 26, 2012 at 20:022 short points:
1) Feminists are not interested in sexual equality. They are interested in
the advancement of the interests of women, as against those of men. They
frequently claim to be interested in sexual equality in principle, as this
allows them to criticise men for doing what they in fact do, i.e. seek to
advance the interests of their own sex at the expense of those of the other.
But in reality they only ever seek to advance the interests of women.2) There is nothing intrinsically left-wing about being a feminist. To the
extent that being a feminist is about liberation, feminism is a particular
manifestation of liberalism. Socialism has nothing to do with feminism – the
fact that one frequently notices the two forms of agitation in a single person
merely results from the fact that right-wing feminists, being conservative,
tend not to make so much noise.
January 26, 2012 at 23:06Feminists are not interested in sexual equality. They are interested
in the advancement of the interests of women…I used to think that, but now I do not. Harriet Harman is a Socialist and
feminist, which is why she rigged it for her husband to get the candidacy
for an all woman list in Birmingham.Diane Abbott is a socialist and feminist, which is why she sent her child
for private education.They are in it not to advance the cause of women but to advance their own
self-interest.- January 27, 2012 at 09:34
I am a feminist and I am interested in ensuring women get a fair crack of
the whip. I am not interested in doing men down – that is a pretty poor way
to make myself feel better. Actually I think it is a pretty poor way for
anyone to make themselve feel better. I have a visceral dislike of bullying
and that’s what most ‘-isms’ come down to.I say ‘feminist’ because that’s the usually accepted tag for someone who
thinks women and men are deserving of equal consideration in law and in
society. Clearly my definition isn’t the same as yours.I agree with your second point though I think you’ll find there have been
quite a few strident conservative feminists in the past!
January 27, 2012 at 13:41However *you* define feminism is one thing, but most rational people
judge any movement on the actions not the claims. Misandry is a huge issue
that has repeatedly demonstrated feminist intentions. And in today’s
world, whenever we see misandry in action – it’s practically a guarantee
that feminism is in there somewhere promoting it. That’s why society is
not accepting the lie that ‘feminism = equality’ because in reality
‘feminism = misandry’.
January 27, 2012 at 15:03“someone who thinks women and men are deserving of equal consideration
in law and in society” is not a feminist but an egalitarian.As with any movement or belief system, it is worth researching feminism
and the feminist literature, meetings and doctrine before stating that you
support it.(Try an Internet search on “Why many women think they are
feminists”)
January 26, 2012 at 18:42My latest thought on LP is that being 25 – far from being Louise Mensch
patronising her – is probably the only viable excuse she has left.
January 26, 2012 at 17:17probably setting myself up for the blunt gelding knife but where I have no
problem with competent strong women (I’ve had some great female bosses), the
feministas just make me laugh out loud – I simply cannot take them seriously.
As a student I saw too many of the laurie penny type – they are simply a
caricature to be mocked.
January 26, 2012 at 17:08I think it would be a jolly good idea to complain to the Leveson Inquiry
that special interest groups get a disproportionate coverage in the press.
January 26, 2012 at 15:55Newsnight is drivelling obsessive pinko nonsense for the chattering
classes.Its okay for you living in France, we have to bloody well pay for it.
January 26, 2012 at 16:05
January 27, 2012 at 09:02No we don’t. There is life without TV.
January 27, 2012 at 10:15There is, but I still get colleagues asking if I saw a particular
programme the previous night. Shades of the Lost Boys – “you read the TV
guide, you don’t need a TV” (with apologies for doubtless misquoting).
- January 26, 2012 at 14:57
Crikey Anna, how much coffee have you had today? Step away from the
expresso!I don’t watch newnight anymore – TV’s blunt my axe edge and I keep having
to re-sharpen it.
I do find politicians trying to lay claim to feminism
hugely amusing. Just a few things to throw out there:
Men had a great deal
to do with the movement for giving women voting and property rights – any
number of MP’s and John Stuart Mill I think?
And lets just have a look at
how politically homogenous feminism has been. Lets look at the Pankhursts
shall we? Middle class, professional protestors.
Mother P and Christabel
advocated use of violence, suspended their suffragette campaign during WW1,
influence on final results overstated IMHO
Sylvia fell out with mummy,
objected to violence and WW1 conscription, campaigned for women in east-end,
hooked up with an italian, socialist politics.
Third sister started off a
commie ended a lighter shade of fascist.Now which political party would you say they exemplified? Any takers?
Thought not. There are some bat-shit crazy women out there claiming to
represent all women. They don’t. They just have delusions of grandeur.I would call myself a feminist – I am a women so to be fair I do have an
axe to grind – and I am not bloody well represented by either Louise Mensch or
Laura Penny. Where’s that axe………….- January 26, 2012 at 15:28
January 26, 2012 at 14:43Is Vera Baird still active then?
Obviously no shame in being publicly labelled an ‘expenses fraudster’
………..having the highest swing AWAY from any MP in history in the 2010 GE,
losing Labour’s safest seat ever – Redcar.In 1997 Mo Mowlam had 32,000 people vote for her – maj. 21,600
In 2001 Vera Baird had 23,000 people vote for her – maj. 13,500.
In 2005 Vera Baird had 20,000 vote for her – maj. 12,000
In 2010 Vera Love Baird 13,750 vote for her – losing 17,000 votes
Says all we need to know about Vera Baird, her views and her
performance.Dog-shit.
January
26, 2012 at 14:17I don’t suppose Louise Mensch pointed out to la Penny that Mosley left the
Conservative party, allied himself with the left and was a Fabian, just like
her.- January 26, 2012 at 21:34
No of course not because Mosley was a LABOUR MP
- January 26, 2012 at 23:00
Oh, John! You’ve gone and done it now!
Provided the Mosley/Fabian/Labour Party link!
Penny-dreadful and Vera ain’t gonna like that!
January 27, 2012 at 07:58Extremists easily move from 11pm to 1am on the political clock. What
they share is the love of uniforms and the idea of their own power over
others.At that stage, whether they are socialist dictators or fascist ones
hardly matters. It just becomes a pissing contest between
mass-murderers.
January 27, 2012 at 17:05Oh nos we are getting close to Godwin’s Law.
Or is this a new alternative law that whenever you connect the
Labour party, Fabianism and some leftwing person that you’ve won the
argument.
January 26, 2012 at 13:51Am I doing it wrong? I don’t seem to fit in the fridge.
(And anyway, does the test tube go on the shelf above or below the meats? I
wouldn’t want to get it wrong – Legiron might come around and condemn my
entire kitchen.)
January 26, 2012 at 13:17Vera Baird makes me feel very ill, for so many reasons, and on a very
deeply profound level. *barf*
January 27, 2012 at 08:28That’s funny. She has the same effect on me, so it’s not gender
based.
January 26, 2012 at 13:00Louise and Rotpfennig are good menschen. I’m waiting for the next World’s
Strongest Person Contest..
January 26, 2012 at 12:47Julia that’s because you use facts and logic to make your arguments not
feelings and emotions…Bad Julia.. letting the side down!
January 26,
2012 at 12:44Funny! I don’t get ‘vile sexist abuse’. So it can’t be blogging that
attracts it…- January 26, 2012 at 13:48
Would you like some?
(I’m free later)
January 26, 2012 at 16:23Perhaps you aren’t trying hard enough?
January
26, 2012 at 17:37They’re terrified of those gigantic fangs.
January 26, 2012 at 20:14Ah but in my mind you are Angelina, whereas Vera Baird, er…. isn’t.
January 26, 2012 at 12:38Agree entirely, I also think Tim Worstall hit the nail on the head:
“Like most gender differences in outcomes, there only ever seems to be
concern when women are under-represented in fields like politics, and never
any concern when men are under-represented for outcomes like bachelor’s
degrees, master’s degrees, doctor’s degrees, graduate school enrollment,
biology degrees, veterinary degrees, optometry degrees, pharmacy degrees, etc.
The only exceptions are when the outcomes are negative like prison
populations, learning disabilities, occupational injuries and fatalities,
motorcycle injuries and fatalities, suicides and drug addiction and then there
is no concern about female under-representation.”http://timworstall.com/2012/01/26/partial-feminism/
January
26, 2012 at 17:43When I worked in a JobCentre I was amazed that no women were interested
in applying for the relatively well-paying jobs on offer from a recycling
firm. The job involved pulling wheelie-bins from the kerbside to the loading
arms at the rear of the dustcart and pushing the emptied bins back (or
pushing and pulling). The smell and dirt involved was no worse than
nappy-changing. It was a pity as women were under-represented in this
employment sector.
{43 comments }