Scream at every male within range and eat chocolate

Five ways to cope with menstrual cramps

True, there’s another three things to suggest but why not start with what is usually done?

25 thoughts on “Scream at every male within range and eat chocolate”

  1. The feminazi mantra…..

    What do we want?

    – Equality!

    When do we want it?

    – When it suits us.

  2. To paraphrase Ian Dury, who sang:

    There ain’t half been some clever bastards
    (Lucky bleeders, lucky bleeders)

    We have more appropriately:

    There ain’t half been some stupid bitches
    (Unlucky bleeders, unlucky bleeders)

    To which I want to point out that the reasons to be cheerful 1 2 3 certainly don’t include 4 if you get what I mean.

  3. Dennis the Peasant

    The author left out the part about it all being the fault of the patriarchy.

    They’re slipping at The Guardian.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    Andrew C,

    Didn’t you get the memo, the mantra is now all about equity not equality?

    This is code for equality of outcome and means they can demand the same pay for different jobs, hours etc. That’s what the idiotic gender pay surveys are all about.

  5. Resolution Foundation – led by a former New Labour apparatchik by the way – spouting Left bollocks again

    …What the report shows is that a substantial proportion of this additional property wealth can be explained by ordinary individuals and families purchasing buy-to-let properties (1.9million buy-to-let owners, up 700,000 from a decade ago) as an alternative form of saving for retirement because of our broken pensions system.

    And who’s to blame for that? Responsibility for the buy-to-let boom can be placed directly at New Labour’s door.

    One of the first actions of the Blair-Brown government when it came to power in 1997 was to tax the dividends paid by Britain’s largest companies into their gold standard final salary pension funds.

    Together with a raft of onerous new regulations, the measures effectively destroyed final salary pensions in the private sector (they still exist in government service) as company after company closed their schemes and opted for cheaper solutions.

    The damage to private pensions – for millions of ordinary workers across Britain, many of them in the steel and car industries – prompted people to look after their own retirement needs by buying second properties to let….

  6. BBC – Why isn’t Lord Hall et al being mauled for “cuts which punish the old & poor” on Today, Newsnight etc?

    Hall got goodies in return: the BBC’s obligation to fund broadband in rural areas would be substantially reduced, the licence fee would be increased in line with inflation for the next five years and the BBC would be allowed to charge the full licence fee to those watching its programmes on devices other than a television set.

    Hall afterwards declared this was a good deal, all in all: ‘If anything, it will put the BBC slightly up.’

    BBC – Elsewhere Money to burn

    More than 20 shows on the BBC’s new £32m Scottish TV channel attract Zero viewers as public brands it ‘rubbish’ and a ‘waste’ of the licence fee

  7. BBC – Why it’s time for adverts on the minority-interest BBC

    BBC seems to be trying to grab the virtue-signalling collectivist identitarian politically correct audience segment to the exclusion of all others. The corporate culture is inherently anti-conservative. This explains why Jo Brand’s comment was able to pass through the entirety of the production and broadcast process with no pause by anyone. They all thought it was edgy, but acceptable.

    It was not. It never was. A senior director of a state-funded charity made exactly the same ‘joke’ on Twitter few weeks ago. She was fired and for her own sake had to delete her Twitter account. People are defending Brand on the grounds of free speech. Vitriol-throwing has never been funny, and Brand was also unoriginal. Her so-called joke had already failed a public test.

    The point remains that the BBC has deliberately shifted away from programming that appeals to a wide audience and is instead targeting a minority. Its role as a public service broadcaster is thus open to question. Rather than an instrument of social cohesion, the BBC is increasingly an instrument of social control.

    There are an increasing number of topics on which discussion is now directed according to an ideological agenda, not least Brexit. The BBC consistently refuses to represent the Brexit majority on the panel of Question Time, sometimes not even having a single supporter of Brexit…

    Privatise C4. Privatise all but BBC1, R4 and World Service, those three funded by donations from public

  8. How much would a subsciption to R4 and R4Extra cost? Bearing in mind I’m already paying twice for them, TV license plus cable fee.

    I can’t remember the last time I listened to something other than R4 or R4Ex, but it was probably when I pressed UP instead of DOWN on the channel selector.

  9. @ BiND
    Equity would mean that a guy who works 48 hours a week gets paid more than a women who works 34 hours a week.
    Don’t you mean “equality not equity”

  10. @AndrewC
    What do we want?
    – Equality!
    When do we want it?
    – When it suits us.

    The lead item for PM today was that we should send fewer women to prison because of the adverse effect it has on their children.

  11. Yes, I heard that, the interviewer kept asking about convicted *parents*, the interviewee kept swerving away to convicted *mothers*.

  12. @jgh

    Issue here is that a large proportion of women convicted of crimes are single mums whereas not many men convicted of crimes are single dads (taking “single parent” as meaning “solely responsible for the childcare”, not just single and having had sprogs). It seems being brought up by a criminal (generally meaning non-violent but serial offender; think shoplifting, possible addict) single mum is not as harmful to the child as having that mum sent to jail and the kids going off to grandparents or the care system instead. So prime facie there are rational grounds for thinking about sentencing single parents differently – e.g. “no point doing something that helps produce a new generation of criminals” – and this will affect women criminals much more than men. Still, from a just deserts point of view, one would hope that being a parent should only change the type of punishment to be more parent-friendly, but not its magnitude. Difficult to prove that two possible sentences, one custodial and one not, are “equally punitive”, but it surely can’t be right to say parents deserve lesser punishment (e.g. having 30% of a custodial term knocked off but nothing else substituted in its place) simply for being parents.

  13. Seeing their parent being a serial criminal without punishment will have a great effect on the kids. Creating a truly criminal caste.

  14. @jgh June 17, 2019 at 8:56 pm

    Hmm £116m per year for 11m listeners. That’s a tenner a year. Sign me up.

    Donations/subscriptions works; thanks.

  15. Subsidising criminal parents ensures more criminals.

    Keeping them out of prison gives them even more time to breed.

    A person imprisoned costs fifty grand a year, but I read somewhere, the economic cost of there prevented behaviour would be 150 grand ish.

    Time off prison sentences for having their tubes tied at a young age?

    No extra child benefit or bigger council slag palace?

  16. Close BBC/C4 never mind any corporate socialist “privatising” nonsense. Gone in 24 hours.

    As for cramps etc–too bad.

  17. Mr Ecks

    How is privatising/selling to highest bidders “corporate socialist “privatising” nonsense”

    I’d prefer each C4 & BBC channel to be be sold separately

  18. A free market is where YOUR name is directly on their paycheck and you vote elsewhere with your payment if you don’t like their shite.

    Selling the BBC and C4 will not have that result.

    First off who is going to buy them? Likely a consortium of the same or similar cunts as those who are now running them. Notice many free market new ideas among the banks and the energy companies– to name two of the cartels “protected” by the British state?. Shut the BBC4 down, sell off their equipment and allow anyone to broadcast anything.

Leave a Reply

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