Against gender equality

It would appear that there’s gender equity and then there’s gender equity:

Indeed, with this precedent, there seems no reason why more male leaders should not soon inspire female staff at Rape Crisis, BPAS and Women’s Aid, or transform the new Women’s Equality party into the more broadly empowering Reg’s party, or welcome us to Marie – and Reg – Stopes, Regnet, the Reg Fawcett Society.

Assuming some women candidates for the NCT job, assuming they existed, had qualifications that rivalled Mr Wilkie’s, one notes that equality law does exempt some occupations, for instance in gender-specific services, religions, political shortlists, even acting, where a particular casting might look as wrong as a male Sheila Kitzinger.

Not, of course, that we want to lose Mr Wilkie. I am sure we all look forward, with enormous interest, to his thoughts on orgasmic birth.

So there’s your bit, over there, which is manly and we have to share that equally. And there’s this bit over here, which is womanly and all you men can fick off.

Yes, most equitable, no?

26 thoughts on “Against gender equality”

  1. It’s feminism. It has never been interested in equality, or equity, whatever the grammatical distinction, and it never has been and never will be. It’s about the innate superiority of women over men, the exclusion of men, and causing harm to men.

    Inequality feminism is not an aberration. It is feminism.

  2. IanB

    Feminism is more an attitude or pose (or mental illness) than a coherent set of doctrines, so it is difficult to pin it down; but, that said, you are right. Most feminists are not interested in treating both sexes fairly, and are interested only in promoting what they see as the interests of women. Unsurprisingly, this turns a lot of women off feminism, particularly if they have sons or if they get on well with men (aka an absence of ‘daddy issues’).

    TN: equality vs equity? In this context, your guess is as good as mine, but I suspect ‘equality’ here means ‘ equal treatment’ and ‘equity’ means ‘fair treatment’. The point is possibly that equal treatment can be unfair (to women), so positive discrimination is needed, though where equal treatment is unfair to men that’s just tough.

  3. Theo-

    In practise, it is a coherent (in the sense of internally consistent) doctrines, which is why they all use the same jargon e.g. “objectification”, “patriarchy”. As I’ve often said here, for practical purposes you only need to read Catharine Mackinnon, particularly Towards A Feminist Theory Of The State, to know the entire feminist doctrine on legal procedure, and how it is implemented in Western nations.

    Feminists like to insist that they are a broad church because there is a penumbra of women calling themselves “feminist” as a very general adjective, but who do not understand the doctrines properly (or at all), much like the many people who consider themselves Christian but don’t understand the theology etc at all beyond Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam.

    But core feminism- that of the organisations, the womens studies departments, the rape crisis centres and womens refuges, of Object and No More Page 3 and Anita Sarkeesian and The Fawcett Society, European Womens Lobby and National Organisation Of Women, is consistent and theoretically unified, with only some debates on the fringes regarding implementation.

  4. Of course, since NGOs are big business these days, the CEO does not need to know anything about ‘orgasmic birth’ or any of the core business of the organisation their running.

    All they need to know is how to chisel taxpayer’s money from the government of the day and how best to utilise chuggers, phone pests and all the rest of the dirty tricks in the charidee arsenal, in order to steal the punter’s money.

    And above all, they need to get invited to all the right dinner parties and to know which tools to use when eating the lobster, (and the correct way to hold the straw when snorting the coke).

    Of course, Wilkie is clearly good at this sort of thing. This is, after all, how he got the job.

  5. Erin Pizzey has talked extensively about how the refuge movement was stolen by the radical feminists, turning her gender neutral programme to heal families into an anti-male jihad and power base for feminist campaigning.

  6. @ Tim Newman
    Equity is about fair shares, which is not the same as equal shares if A has put in twice as much as B. e.g. if you have 1,000 shares in Shell and I have 10 shares, equity means that your dividend cheque is 100 times the size of mine – equality would be the same dividend on 1,000 shares as on 10.

  7. Erin Pizzy give the goods on “women’s refuges”–she founded the first in the UK I believe.

    IanB:”But core feminism- that of the organisations, the womens studies departments, the rape crisis centres and womens refuges, of Object and No More Page 3 and Anita Sarkeesian and The Fawcett Society, European Womens Lobby and National Organisation Of Women, is consistent and theoretically unified, with only some debates on the fringes regarding implementation.”

    All the above need to join the list of those to cease to get a single penny from the taxpayer.

    That will cramp their style (Dungaree’d Death?) somewhat.

  8. Slightly OT, but our favourite immigration loving economist (Frances Coppola) is currently getting a good kicking by the same sort of feminists as evidenced by this article over the issue of women who were born in the 50s (and thus grew up in the feminist 60s and 70s) who are appalled at the idea that they might have to work until the same age as men. She has had the temerity to support the idea that they should indeed have to work as long as men (although not agreeing with the way the State has gone about implementing the policy) and thus is getting a good going over about her lack of solidarity to the sisterhood.

  9. IanB
    I am sure you can find a semi-coherent core to , radical feminism, particularly in and around women’s studies departments and their journals. And perhaps likewise in the feminist lobbying organisations. Yet feminism remains chaotic and incoherent. How much, apart from some general attitudes, do Germaine Greer, Laurie Penny, Naomi Wolf, Suzanne Moore, Polly Toynbee, and Julie Bindell have in common?

  10. Jim

    Thanks for that. Frances is right on this one and she gives as good as she gets (as Murphy found to his cost).

    Talking of Frances’s bizarre views on immigration…I see the Jezbollah MP for York Central, Rachel Maskell, is quoted today in The Sunday Times as saying that the UK should accept refugees up to “saturation point”. What does it matter, she says, that we might have to wait another week for a hospital appointment, that school class sizes might rise, that our cities might be more crowded? “Surely it’s worth it to see those lives restored again.”

  11. Theo,

    A Jezbollah in a Yorkie bar – isn’t this just the usual leftie supranationalistic expialidocious nonsense?

    Given the UK shortage of housing, saturation for M Maskell can only mean she personally gets to share her bathroom with a few more families in need. Ah, no – apparently it doesn’t…

  12. Theo-

    All those women actually agree on the core Feminist theory I’ve discussed, with the exception of the current “trans” flap as Feminist theory cannot accomodate it. You can’t have a class struggle if the classes struggling do not exist.

  13. Rachael Maskell apparently said (source: Wiki) about the refugees-

    “we can all have a bit more compassion. If it was the other way round and we were in that desperate situation, we would expect somebody to show compassion to us.”

    What she doesn’t seem to grasp is that when that time comes, nobody will. There will be nowhere for us to go.

  14. “If it was the other way round and we were in that desperate situation, we would expect somebody to show compassion to us.”

    The time did come and we stayed where we are and showed Jerry what for.

  15. Kevin B,

    “Of course, since NGOs are big business these days, the CEO does not need to know anything about ‘orgasmic birth’ or any of the core business of the organisation their running.”

    Yes, this rather tickled me. At one time this might well have been a woman because she’d have been the wife of a rich man doing the noblesse oblige thing where he makes a ton of cash and she spends all her time in a charity (and also spends some of his money). Or in the case of my local charity, a woman who got to a point in her life where she no longer wanted a high power job, but something with purpose, but a husband who carried on making money.

    The big guys just really want cash now. They don’t care if 80% of the donor’s money goes to chugging agencies. They don’t even care about the results. Ask yourself what the hell some of these charities actually do, and not printing slogans “fighting for childhood” or “preventing abuse” or “raising awareness of breast cancer”, but actual help. And that means they hire experienced pros to maximise income and that often means men.

  16. PF
    Unfortunately, Commissar Maskell believes what she says, even if she has no intention of sharing her bathroom with these economic migrants – sorry, refugees. Flooding the country with such people would change the character of the society she loathes and would deliver a large client vote to Labour.

  17. I just looked up “orgasmic birth”.

    They’ve sure come a long way from Shulamith Firestone and her “shitting a melon” haven’t they?

  18. IanB

    OK, so they all agree (or would probably agree) on feminist legal theory; but, actually, they agree on little else, not least because of their competitive, leap-frogging, I-am-more-feminist-than-thou, virtue-signalling.

    You’ll be claiming that there is a core green philosophy next, because you’ve read Moonbat’s collected works and….Yet, whenever three self-identifying greens meet together, they have at least four opinons about many (if not most) eco-issues.

    And there is no parallel with the major Christian churches. Even if some peasants in rural Spain or Greece might still believe that the Trinity consists of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the major Christian churches have decision procedures for deciding doctrine. Feminism and the eco-freaks lack rigorous decision procedures, because they are anarchic and incoherent.

    That said, attitudes are more dangerous than articulated doctrines. The latter can be dissected, discussed and dismissed. Attitudes seep largely unnoticed into the uncritical minds of the un- and semi-educated — often with disastrous effects. Which is one reason why direct democracy would be a bad idea.

  19. Of course there’s a core Green philosophy. It is that mankind is a scourge which is destroying nature which must be contained by any means possible.

    That different members of a movement may argue about implementation and policy is neither here nor there. So do socialists, libertarians, christians and any other such group.

    Monbiot by the way is a preacher/populariser not a theorist. Same as in Feminism, Mackinnon is a theorist and Steinem a populariser.

  20. IanB

    That’s not a green philosophy: it’s an attitude. Subject to rational criticism, it falls apart.

    Christian churches and socialist parties have decision procedures and sacred texts with inherited commentary. Feminists could not agree on decision procedures or on their sacred texts. Libertarians are not dissimilar. Laughably, even the Libertarian Alliance split, did it not? You seem to be a disciple of St Sean the Gabb.

  21. A philosophy is an attitude. The test of rational criticism is irrelevant; Marxism is a philosophy. It is demonstrably wrong. Platonism is a philosophy. It is also wrong. I think you’ve got a strange idea of what a philosophy is; by your definition, nothing is.

    You don’t need a sacred text. Christianity is most definitely a philosophy but most of it is not in the sacred text. Philosophies, movements and so forth often have schisms. Even, again, Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism. Calvinists and Catholics don’t even agree on the means of salvation, or whether man has free will.

    Feminism (and Greenism) are comparable to any other recognisable philosophy in these regards. Feminism is if anything more unified than religions, and vastly moreso than say, socialism or conservatism, which are considered philosophical positions even though they are very broad.

    Sean and I agree on some things but disagree on others, by the way. He’s a libertarian conservative and I’m a libertine nationalist. Or something.

  22. The 57 varieties of existentialism are an attitude, like feminism and gaia-worship/eco-fascism. Marxism, Christianity, platonism, etc are philosophies. The latter have arguments, doctrines and texts. Feminism and greenery come nowhere near the coherence of platonism, the major religions or Marxism, all of which can be rationally criticised and defended. Criticizing feminism rationally is like trying to nail jelly to tree, because feminism is largely irrational.

  23. Bloke in Costa Rica

    As the old joke goes: I phoned the Rape Advice Hotline, but it turns out that wasn’t the kind of advice they were giving.

Leave a Reply

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