I blame Harriet Harman myself

Report finds shocking absence of women from UK public life

The number of women in senior levels of the judiciary, education, the arts, finance, the civil service and government is plummeting, according to a new report, Sex and Power 2013. Women\’s representation has gone into reverse

The reason being that we\’ve tried this and we ended up with the likes of Harriet Harman running things.

More women in politics? Sure, why the hell not? Then we realise the reality of such an ambition. The type of women who rise to the top are those like Harman. Those that would best be described as my (thankfully) ex- mother in law.

We\’ve tried sharing rule with ghastly harridans and found that we don\’t like being ruled by ghastly harridans. Tant pis.

24 comments on “I blame Harriet Harman myself

  1. It’s an article in the Guardian, so naturally it’s all Mrs Thatcher’s fault. Although I was once reliably informed, by a lecturer in sociology no less, that Maggie was an “honourary man”, so maybe patriarchy wins again.

    The same chap earnestly explained to me that John Major was allowed to become PM in order to hoodwink the masses into believing social mobility is real in the UK. This wasn’t at one of those newfangled ersatz universities that was formerly a college of washing machine repair.

  2. To be fair to the Harriet Harman’s of the world, their male counterparts are not really any better, we are just more used to them.

  3. Not that the men are a great deal better…

    My concern is that not enough decent honourable intelligent people of eith sex or any colour or religion are reaching the top in any country.

    I blame 24 hr news.

  4. “… their male counterparts are not really any better”

    There really are gender differences in politics. The first consequence of female suffrage was prohibition, and we’re still at least a century away from nullifying the appalling consequences of that debacle.

  5. One basic problem is that women of privilege are more interested in complaining that other women aren’t MPs, rather than doing it themselves, or writing articles in newspapers about the lack of female board members rather than starting businesses.

    Who’d want to be an MP, with no power but under permanent public scrutiny? Politicians do not run the country these days, they take the blame for it going wrong and try to satisfy special interest groups. There’s far more influence to be had running one of those SIGs, like the Fawcett Society… and furthermore you can do that without anyone kicking up a fuss about your former career as a Marxist terrorist. Angry Brigade to Angry Princesses Brigade, and all that.

    Seriously, men want to do these things because it will enhance their social status and give an ugly fat bastard potential access to moderately attractive youngish women. What’s in it for women? Not much.

  6. The first consequence of female suffrage was prohibition,

    “Amred with the ballot, the mothers of America will legislate morality!”

  7. I tried to make similar points at Lib Con about the reactionary nature of much of the Suffrage movement, it didn’t go down well.

  8. Ian B is on the right track. There are plenty of women running the country in quangos and Sigs, well away from the public eye.

  9. Jeez, if Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith were enough to put you off women in politics I can’t imagine how Tony Blair, David Blunkett, David Miliband, Nick Clegg, Chris Huhne, David Cameron, George Osborne and George Galloway have made you feel about men.

  10. I think another aspect to the problem is probably the Feminist promise that women would be better than men in politics, and thus they appear disappointing simply if they’re no worse than the men. It’s always bad to promise more than you can deliver, because of the inevitable disappointment; otherwise known as the Wonderbra Principle.

  11. Ian B,

    Seriously, men want to do these things because it will enhance their social status and give an ugly fat bastard potential access to moderately attractive youngish women. What’s in it for women? Not much.

    Money. Take a random sample of women MPs, and very few were in senior positions in their job before they entered parliament, nor are married to very successful men.

  12. >What’s in it for women? Not much.

    Right. So a lot of them go into politics because they are ideological. And that can be very unattractive. Smooth b*stards who mainly like power and status such as Blair and Cameron are better at presenting themselves in an attractive way. Notice how the women who are less ideological are also better at presenting themselves to the ordinary person.

  13. It’s not just a men versus women thing. We’ve also been working through the alphabet soup of the other sexes. Les, gay, bi, Not sure about transexuals, but that’s surely the point. None of them have proved much good.
    Personally, I’m betting on border-collies to make the best MPs. They’re very good with sheep.

  14. When are we going to realise that the hereditary principle actually is the best way of choosing our leaders? At least you occasionally get a good one among the duffers. And the advantage of a king is its a damn sight cheaper to keep him (or her) in the lap of the most extravagant luxury, than maintain the type of State apparatus we have today.

    I suggest abolishing the House of Commons, reintroducing the hereditary peers to the Lords (getting rid of the life Peers of course) and make the Monarch the ‘Prime Minister’ with a government of Peers. It couldn’t be worse than what we have now.

  15. I vaguely recall reading in Private Eye a while ago about the candidate for the Pakistan Eunuchs Party on the campaign trail in the Lahore East by-election. His slogan was

    “Men and women have had their turn, and ruined everything. Now give us a chance!”

    He lost his deposit.

  16. If there are few women in high office, then clearly women must lack either sufficient interest in attaining high office, or they must lack ability.
    By the way, it is my impression that fewer women than men choose to start their own businesses, and even fewer choose to grow those businesses to a large size.
    Women claiming that men are holding them back proves the point- if women had both the interest and the ability men would be unable to hold them back.
    My impression is that women have babies, whereas men don’t, and that women are far more driven to spend time with their children than men- so that they commonly use their talents outside high office.

  17. Bloody hell.
    What with the other one about harassing married women being ‘just sex’, I’m beginning to wish I’d not gone on this today.

    “The type of women who rise to the top are those like Harman. ”

    This makes no sense. Let’s try two similar examples to illustrate how daft the logic is:
    “The type of women who rise to the top are those like Thatcher.”
    “The type of men who rise to the top are those like Gordon Brown”.

    Tim adds: “The type of men who rise to the top are those like Gordon Brown”

    It is an excellent argument against our current form of democracy, yes I most certainly agree.

  18. john malpas

    “wanting women in power is sexist.
    So get a computer to run the country.”

    I always assumed that was the whole point of AI, so we could cull the commies.

  19. Our system is a popularity contest, not a beauty contest or a round of university challenge.
    Seen female candidates stand at election plenty of times. For whatever reason the electorate seem to choose other people when voting…

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may 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>