If you want a reminder of how lucky we are to be rid of the bastards, just read Yvette Cooper in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/04/women-budget-cuts-yvette-cooper#start-of-comments
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Dear Jon,
Feminism includes: “an awareness of the effects of traditional/religious misogyny.”
Is this akin to the awareness of ‘giving a dog a bad name’, or ‘begging the question’?
Feminism includes: “support for equal pay for equal work.”
We are not clones, we are diverse; and yet feminists undermine this with socialist laws to establish equal outcomes. We should all have equal opportunity to strive towards being unequal. Or is Usain Bolt a racist for beating white men, or being sexist for beating all women?
Feminism includes: “support for women to enter professions that are seen, consciously or otherwise, as the preserve of men”
So much for equal merit and equal work capacity. Do feminists aim to hobble men, flatter women, or a combination of both? And that is ignoring the insult against superior men who have won their spurs, only to be accused by feminists as being protectionist, “consciously or otherwise”. How unfair of Usain Bolt to win against white men; does he impudently believe that winning is the preserve of black men?
Feminism includes: “educating men who are given to misogyny or gender discrimination”
Correction Gulags, anybody? Will there be education for feminists, or is this a one-way street?
Feminism includes: “educating women to avoid reinforcing their own psychological gender traps (e.g. by purchasing fashion/celebrity magazines that add undeserving validity to the beauty myth).”
Clones, anybody? So you’re going to give them ‘ugly lessons’, and show them how to wear a strap-on? Maybe “psychological gender traps” and “the beauty myth”, are natures way of saying: evolution is smarter than feminism.
Jon said: “At the time, to your credit, you implied that these were good things, but that I was “a good hearted liberal” rather than a feminist.”
In no way, then or now, would I have agreed to your NEW list. You should quote the original that I am supposed to have agreed with, and not substitute in, the cuckoo above.
Jon asked: “Moreover, and I don’t mean this question unkindly, but could you comment on what your drivers might be for a generally anti-women stance?”
Sure I’ll comment: I love women, and I hate feminists. Your problem is that you can’t tell a hawk from a heron.
“Mr Clegg also announced that 66% – rather than the previously planned 55% – of MPs would be needed to force a dissolution of Parliament.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10506207.stm
So liberal; so democratic.
alan campbell
I see that that important announcement came as a small insert in an article about AV voting. The BBC at it again.
A link for the manginas, to better understand the scope of feminism in the west:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/07/03/welcome-a-voice-for-men-has-a-new-face/
Expenses in the news.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7871073/MPs-expenses-David-Laws-faces-police-inquiry-over-allowances.html
I’m staying out of this one. But Coopers piece did seem to painting a distorted picture of the facts presented.
Yes, technicolour, there seems among some bloggers hereabouts a reflexive argument which runs something like this:
“The world’s a shit place, a really, really, shitty place. And we’re really mad and we’re not taking any more! Since we can’t become Batmen… or Robin… or Cat Woman…
Let’s blame it all on women, minorities and the length of Karl Marx’s beard. Those bleedin Marxo-Lenino-Mao-Syndicalo-Situationista-Stalino-Harmanites! Don’t they shave their chins, their armpits or their legs?
S’not the global war economy, s’not the bankrupt, destructive financial system, s’not fundamentalist corporate capitalism. S’not neo- and retro-colonialism, s’not the destruction of manufacturing across the UK and large parts of the USA.
Nah, it’s those fat liberated so-an-so’s who wear specs, those narrow specs that make their eyes look hard, the ones that work, and it’s those ones that don;t work, and it’s those ones who might work, and those ones who might not work. And it’s those ones that have kids, yeah, you know, they have kids offa men, and they wanna work, God, whatstheworldcominto, I dunno, women wanna work, I mean, okay they worked in the fields when we were all peasants and they worked in the factories makin bombs to bomb Gerrie, but you know what I mean. They take all our jobs! See that Harman woman, she’d cut the hangin’ balls off a snooker-table, she would!
And those immigrants, yeah, you know like Eric Clapton said, Leyyyylaaa, you got me on ma knees, immigrants, that is, spanning the past 60 years, Leyyylaaa, I’m beggin you, darlin please, but not before that, well, y’know, okay so they’re coloured and East Euro lap-dancin’ Gyps, y’know, Leyylaaa, you Persian Sufi bitch, please lay la meee, but that ain’t got nothin to do with it, of course, yeh, what it is is, they take our women, yeh, y’know, flashy cars and flashy jewellery, yeah, lotta pimps they are, no, it’s not that, it’s the fact that… the fact that… the fact that… What’s that…? What’s that you say? Men are a minority, too? Wajameen? I’m not a minority, I’m a majority, me! Have been, and always will be. I’m normal, me. Normal Norman. That’s me. I am a majority, I am a big, big, big man. I am Mister Big! I am so big, I have become an infinite number! I am a number, I am not a free man, I am a number, I am not a free man!”
Hi Jimmy – the original list is on a post somewhere on this site, lost in the depths of time. It honestly wasn’t a sleight of hand to substitute a new list in place of the old one!
I didn’t understand your objection to my first point, which was that it is my view that masculine superiority exists as a result of ancient and religious gender discrimination. Do you believe this not to be the case?
Your understanding of anti-discrimination legislation as being “socialist laws to establish equal outcomes” is perhaps a touch unfair. My view is that, in general, anti-discrimination legislation (on gender, race, sexuality etc) tries to redress the balance between traditionally discriminated groups. I think this is a good thing, though undoubtedly in all categories there are examples where it has gone wrong. But in general I think it is a good thing.
Do you oppose all discrimination legislation, or just ones based on gender?
I am incidentally in favour of education for feminists and misandrists, yes, as well as education for misogynists. The process of gender non-discrimination must be a two-way street and as a man you (we) have a right to be heard.
“Do feminists aim to hobble men, flatter women, or a combination of both”. Neither, in the main. I presume that you take the opposite view, but I don’t see any evidence for it. Yes, an anti-man feminism exists, but I can’t see how basic anti-gender-discrimination counts as such. Meanwhile in your question I sense a view that “men are always better at things”, which is not true at all.
“Maybe ‘psychological gender traps’ and ‘the beauty myth’, are natures way of saying: evolution is smarter than feminism.” Jimmy, that’s just plain cruel – or am I missing the punchline of a complex, dry joke? Do you think that the psychological effects of the beauty ideal don’t ever lead to anorexia, predominantly in women? Or, in other cases, a body dysmorphia that leads to the perverse demand for plastic surgery, again primarily in women?
No, educating women (and men) about the psychological effects of the media projection of permanent youthful attrativeness need not (and would not) create clones. I think it would encourage independent thinking, discourage damaging body neuroses, and start a wave of creative people who invent themselves in their own image. In fact, isn’t the chase for “fashion” we have now a polite euphemism for expensive corporate-driven cloning?
Suhayl… what have I told you about smoking that stuff? 🙂
(Very creative though!)
Thanks, Jon. And for your consistent attempts on this thread and elsewhere to argue rationally and with mutual respect.
I hope, too, that my little caricature vignette is taken in the sense it was intended – as humour – though with a serious point.
It was very funny, Suhayl. And Jon, thank you too, you explain things to me.
I’m not a fan of the right wing of the Labour party either, but i don’t see what was wrong with what Cooper said in this case. Women are still mostly worse paid than men, so she’s right, welfare cuts will hit them harder.
The new government is so far even worse than Blair and Brown were in government – they still obey Washington’s orders on foreign policy – with British troops to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, though Cameron “hopes” they’ll be out before the next election (which is no kind of solid commitment); they still take the same line on Israel; they still run government policy for the benefit of the wealthiest and big companies (even more than Labour did); they still punish the poorest most in “welfare reform” and public spending choices – if anything much more than Blair and Brown did.
JimmyGiro – Jon’s right You’re assuming all feminists are extremists who hate men and want female dominance over men. A few of them are, most aren’t though.
It isn’t a choice between being a misogynist (woman-hater) or a misandryst (man-hater). There are plenty of reasonable feminists – and the points Cooper made in the article Craig links to were all based on fact.
@alan campbell: thanks for that information about the 66 percent, though it caused me a certain amount of existential despair.
although apparently
“parliament will still be able to defeat the government in a no-confidence vote with a simple majority of over 51 per cent.
If the government fails to form a government in the fourteen days following the no-confidence vote, it will be forced to call an election.”
It could be worse. A certain South American dictator could be running the country, with all his bank holidays and nationalised Sainsbury’s outlets and ….
http://southoftheborder.dogwoof.com/chavez_vs_cameron/
nice link 🙂
Guys,
The argument that ‘some feminists are…’, is somewhat irrelevant; like judging Nazis according to some nice SS officers, who gave sweeties to the doomed Jewish children.
We have to judge feminism, and therefore feminists, by what they have done.
(1) Gained special advantages in job applications, thus making a mockery of ‘equal opportunity’.
(2) Created laws that help destroy families by (a) aiding no-fault divorce for women, (b) presuming fathers to be guilty until proven innocent, in a secret family court that has no incentive to find a man innocent; therefore never left with child contact.
(3) Changed the education system, because boys did better than girls, into a dumbed down system, in which girls do better than boys!?
(4) Prescribe Ritalin and other mind altering drugs to a substantial number of boys, for the most dubious excuses, including a fabricated mental disorder called ADHD; with the result that the minds of these lads are irrevocably altered during their formative years.
What pap these feminists use to dupe women and manginas, to believe their intentions are virtuous, even to the point that some of them seem almost innocent, belies the fact that it is their evil actions that have exposed their true evil intents.
Jimmy,
Your comments need a few inserting.
Do explain yourself further, at the moment they just seem vague taxi-driver rants.
Where to guv’?
I’ve got quite a lot of sympathy for your view, Mr Giro; particularly the lack of equal rights for fathers. I also agree that the prescription of Ritalin and other drugs to children and the upsurge in false diagnoses are both frightening and disgraceful.
I’m not aware of how many girls get put on Ritalin; I suspect you’re right, and it is mainly boys. Girls, instead, in my experience, as well as now being injected en masse ‘against’ cervical cancer, are mainly put on Prozac et al (side effects: nausea, stomach pains, dizziness, hallucinations, depression).
What’s being done to the bright, active boys in our society almost makes me weep, quite frankly. But it is not, and I think this is the rub, something you can blame on a single group of people. There were female Nazis, certainly, but Hitler was not a feminist, nor was the Nazi movement one of female domination.
Instead we have – what – common culpability here, I think. Ranging from the drug companies to the crooked or gullible politicians, doctors, public, courts, and every one of us who’s failed to stand up against this culture of bullying when we see it.
Otherwise, it’s not true to say that women (I note you too have easily slipped from ‘feminists’ to ‘women’)get all the best jobs, which you imply with your assertion that women get special advantages when applying for jobs. Not only is the lack of women in positions of power a glaring one, I refer you to this country’s vast army of underpaid and overworked carers, teachers and nurses, who are mainly women (I tend to think this is a shame, myself, but still).
@technicolour
Only a few decades ago, there were more male teachers than female, but this changed due to Marxist-Femist teaching politics. That started about the the late 70’s, when most teaching colleges were under the aegis of left-wing councils:
http://jimmygiro.blogspot.com/2008/08/educating-ritalin.html
As for your comment: “Not only is the lack of women in positions of power a glaring one…”
This goes under the critique of ‘equal outcomes’ as noted in comments above; which is chalk and cheese to the idea of ‘equal opportunity’.
The anti-feminist fact is: that there are twice as many men than women with IQs above 125, and the disparity increases many fold, the higher you take the intelligence score.
technicolour said: “(I note you too have easily slipped from ‘feminists’ to ‘women’)”
No slip there; the receiver of stolen goods is not the thief, but is still a crook. Feminists commit the offence of politics, but most women gain the unfair advantages.
Perhaps, Jimmy, you might benefit from a ‘watermelon man’ experience – as in the film, ‘The Watermelon Man’. In other words, one morning you wake up and find yourself transformed into a woman: Jemima Giro. Let’s make it a white woman, though, in order to exert only a single variable: Jamesina (Ina) Giro. And you stay a Ina Giro for around five years, say. How about it? What d’you say? But perhaps you’d jump at the chance. After all, then you’d get to be a dominatrix. Hey! Ina Giro the Dominatrix. You’d get to wear fishnet stockings. Maybe you do anyway. Whatever gets you thru’ the night, man.
I agree with technicolour. Education’s dumbed-down for everyone, not just boys. Ritalin, etc. is crazy, crazy policy – doping our kids for what? But it’s not being done because women hate boys. It’s because drug companies make big profits and construct the ‘evidence-base’ and no-one from ‘inside’ – doctors – seems willing to shout and scream about it (at least not that the general public consciousness can hear – and before you ask, I’ve been shouting for years and no-one listens to me, after all, who am I?).
Actually, though, I do think you have a point about the courts and the benefits, etc. system which actively works against families in all kinds of ways. I think this is largely due to fundamentalist capitalism and the stupid application of a ‘men are bad and are all rapists and abusers’ ideology. You just have to visit some other countries – China, the Middle East, for example – and see that men can talk to a child (who is with their mother or father whatever) and not get dirty looks from all and sundry.
So your points are not without some merit. Just don’t try and make everything fit into your thesis, otherwise you lose the baby with the bathwater (unfortunate metaphor, sorry).
Oh fur Pete’s sake, Ina, come oan tae grips!
IQ, IQ? Well, if one thinks back to the early and mid and late 1970s, all the classes had girls at the top in most things. Well, in my school they did, anyway. Damn! A girl even regularly used to scoop the English Prize! Jimmy, what are you talking about? You’re not willing to accept anything anyone else says.
Mr Giro: I’m not sure that point about IQ, if true (source, please) is at all relevant. In fact, IQ tests are not at all relevant: they measure how good you are at doing IQ tests. That’s all. Or do you believe in that sort of thing?
Otherwise I think your point about male teachers being replaced is interesting; but again, the conclusion is surely that in a fair society, the genders would be represented in roughly equal numbers.
Tho to be fair, some schools of thought reckon there are as many as ten genders, which would make that rather tricky.
Otherwise, what’s your theory about mainly female careworkers? Was there a secret bosomy cabal behind that too? “Yes! Let’s orchestrate for women to take over the care sector and do exhausting, physically demanding work for six quid an hour 80 hours a week while trying to raise children!”
Sorry for being flippant, it’s all reminding me of the Two Ronnie’s superb “The Worm that Turned” series. Have you seen that, Mr Giro? I know life is no easier for lorry drivers and plasterers, by the way.
jeez, off topic rather but just saw this “Cancer drug four times more deadly than no treatment” story:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/06/pfizer-pulls-leukemia-drug-from-us-market.aspx
Ten genders! Good God! Name them, technicolour, I challenge you!
Just out of curiosity, of course…
well, I got called a hedgehog. And I know someone who’s definitely a sea lion, and someone else who’s a joker…
“Mr Giro: I’m not sure that point about IQ, if true (source, please) is at all relevant.”
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183166.stm