But there is a new, arguably greater threat: the extremism of young women. If young men have trended Rightwards and downwards, young women have gone to the dark Left. Haven’t you noticed that the most passionate disrupters, yelling till puce in the face, are women?
Major surveys have already shown that Gen Z women have moved sharply to the Left over the past few years. In the UK, the 2024 election showed how wide the gender gap, in electoral politics alone, has become.
A good 23 per cent of 18- to 24-year-old women voted Green, compared to 12 per cent of young men and 6.7 per cent of the general population.
So that century long experiment hasn’t worked out. The wisdom of our forefathers – to emotional to be able to think properly about things – has proven correct.
Back we go therefore.
Right?
Well, to quibble, the piece is written by a woman and it claims 77% of women don’t vote Green.
I have two daughters, one sister, and one wife and they are all extremely sound.
TBF I know at least three ardent Greenie women, but their husbands are also Greens. (Oddly in all other respects all six are great people.)
The worst Green I know – a local councillor who cycles everywhere ostentatiously and drinks halves of water in the pub – is a giant cunt of a bloke but his wife thinks he’s mad.
Maggie Thatcher – who had her faults – was by far the best PM of my lifetime to date.
Let’s not panic too much. The power cuts are going to straighten a lot of people out I suspect.
The power cuts will sort out the cosplayers and dabblers. To the committed, they’ll be the fault of the patriarchy, and further proof that even harder green-feminist-unicauseism is essential.
True, but as ever the committed are few in number and they float on a tide of millions who think Green shit sounds nice but will change their minds when reality bites.
“To the committed, they’ll be the fault of the patriarchy,”
This, in bucketloads.
Socialists (and other assorted loonies) introduce policies that are doomed to fail and when they do fail, they blame capitalism.
How much worse is it because of the average of women? Yes, 77% of them (probably less if you consider other female fuckwittery) are sound, but that shifts politics a bit towards stupidity.
To me the big problem is that lots of women are micro rather than macro thinkers, personal rather than system. This makes them really good at things like customer service and care work. They’ll get involved in politics at the level that a bus service stops running. But they can’t think more abstractly about how we decide what bus policy is.
It’s one of the reasons I’m really wary about buying shares in companies run by women. They have to be over the end of the spectrum where Thatcher was. Few female CEOs bring forth business transformation. Women in business are more doing what we’ve always done.
I agree that on the average I’d rather have blokes running big things – though it’s pretty fucking hard to distinguish a lot of blokes from women these days, and I don’t just mean the ones in dresses.
I’m just saying (I suppose rather obviously) that there are plenty of sensible women, that (marginally) more of the Green twats I know are blokes, and that all but the truly insane are going to meet reality head on soon.
I’m just happy with the competent in that role. I know some ferociously competent women. I also know plenty who may as well be Martians, some of whom were clients. I’ve let most of them go. Couldn’t take it any more. Apart from the one with the nice arse, that is…
I know 3 greens around here. Two women, one men. I know the women because of a social connection. And they’re generally good people. And quite sincere in their eco-ness.
But you try and get over to them that many rural buses are worse for the environment than cars, and they can’t get it. A bus carrying 2 people is worse than 2 cars. It’s a 7l engine vehicle and 2 cars would be a combined 3-4l.
The big thing with a lot of “eco” is that people have an imagined version of it. A sunny city scene with children riding bicycles and eating organic food. The reality of organic food is poverty and war. You need more land to grow food, so arable land becomes expensive. At which point, building Panzers to nick it seems like a good idea. Fritz Haber and John Deere should get all the Nobel Peace Prizes.
“To me the big problem is that lots of women are micro rather than macro thinkers, personal rather than system. “
I’ve always said that women have a bubble around them, if you’re in the bubble they will move heaven and earth to help you, if you’re outside it you’re considered at best of no interest, at worst an active enemy. A result of evolutionary biology I guess, the child is the most important thing in a woman’s life, then those immediately around her who can help the child, then everyone else. So women focus on the here and now immediately around them.
So women focus on the here and now immediately around them.
But they don’t, in general. They project their “compassion” – and their feelings tell them to demand more NHS, more help for illegal migrants, more international aid, more “care for the planet”, etc…
There’s a bit of that, yes. But there’s also a thing about focus and detail. Nearly all the best software testers are women. The best people doing fine work on crafts are nearly all women.
But it’s the men that look at a thing and figure out how to automate it, how to make it a process. You can have an office with people doing something like adding the contents of an emailled file into a master file. Women will open up Outlook, open the attachment, copy it out, paste into the master. The men will build a bit of VBA that takes one click.
And when you find women that are behaving like men in the office, they are not average women in my experience. They’re closer to the male end of the spectrum. They don’t spend much on clothes. They don’t care if someone brings a baby into the office. Their home setup is not married, kids, husband who earns more.
The best female CEOs have zero vanity to them. They’ve got the money to fix their teeth and wear Chanel, but they don’t.
“They project their ‘compassion’”
Isn’t that mostly just status seeking? Most of the people saying that sort of stuff don’t believe it, they just think they’ve got to say it to be seen as one of the right sort?
So it’s not really projecting out to wider society, it’s actually just aimed at the neighbours who they want to drink Chardonnay with.
This!!!
…that shifts politics a bit towards stupidity.
To me the big problem is that lots of women are micro rather than macro thinkers, personal rather than system. This makes them really good at things like customer service and care work. They’ll get involved in politics at the level that a bus service stops running. But they can’t think more abstractly about how we decide what bus policy is.
Like a frog in a slowly boiling pan, advocates of the-women-I-know-are-sound response manage to ignore that feminism (unlike female emancipation) is a social cancer – the source of wokery. Our society is increasingly feminised – in social & economic policy, in education, in employment, in defence, in healthcare, in politics, in the judiciary, in media, in entertainment and drama, etc, etc. And this could be reversed relatively easily…
Granting the vote to women was one of many errors. It has tipped the West’s political priorities towards welfare, healthcare, indiscriminate “compassion” and often open wokery. As for removing the vote from women, that ship has sailed: politically, it’s impossible. Far better to restrict the franchise by raising the voting age to at least 21, by removing the vote from anyone on out-of-work benefits for more than 12 months or even removing the vote from anyone who is not a property owner (with or without a mortgage).
21 won’t work. That’s the femi-watermelon hot spot. Has to be net tax contributor. HMRC has the data. Voting rights granted automatically on annual payment. Easy & cheap to do. Essentially, your income tax payment (after all benefits of all kinds are deducted) buys your franchise, every year.
State pensioners like me, who no longer contribute much tax, get disenfranchised. This stops the pandering to the grey vote.
Evil.
Note my proposal disenfranchises old fascists like me. God, you’re a dumb cunt.
That is evil tyranny.
Every adult should have a vote, regardless.
You cannot stop people from voting just because you disagree with them.
Why not van anyone who has a job from voting?
Why not ban all Reform voters from voting?
Why not ban all people accused of hate crimes from voting?
Why not if we go down such democratic logic?
I think every adult should have a right to a vote, regardless of sex, views, age, race, sexuality, or whether or not they are disabled.
That means all adults will be listened to and represented.
You cannot stop people from voting just because you disagree with them.
We’re not, you dope. We’re stopping people voting who have a vested interest in voting themselves other people’s money because this is corrupting. If the idiot watermelon Emma Thompson is a net taxpayer here she’s welcome to vote. If she’s not she can fuck off.
That is tyranny. Taking votes away from people like me is evil.
I support democracy. Everyone should have the vote.
Restriction of the franchise will happen – as predicted in the 19th century. People who voluntarily fail to contribute shouldn’t have a say in how the country is run.
The franchise will get wider and wider, pushed by those that benefit from additional voters.We already give the vote to some foreigners, Labour propose giving it to *all* foreigners, as well as some children. Adult Citizen Franchise is being lost on the bonfire of corruption.
What do you .mean contribute?
So disabled people and shy people are discriminated against from. working alos lose their vote. You are talking evil tyranny.
And with AI growing more and more people will lose work.
It has tipped the West’s political priorities towards . . . .
And away from prime duties. E.g., courts listen to what a bad childhood a perp had. The courts exist to keep them away from us. Their childhood has FA to do with it. Another prime failure is the invasion of third worlders.
Maggie Thatcher lost 2 million manufacturing jobs.
Most of them were going anyway. And many other kinds of jobs eventually emerged. Don’t forget Labour closed way more pits than Maggie ever did.
Take your head out of your arse and inform yourself. Oh, you can’t: someone else’s cock is up it.
But no PM lost as many manufacturing jobs as Thatcher.
Pitt the younger lost 3 million agricultural jobs.
I doubt Pitt the Younger lost 3 million jobs. Where is your evidence?
Orwell nailed it again in 1984 (the book, not the year):
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
While we are at it raise the voting age to 35.
Well the original 1918 act set the age for women at 30.
“While we are at it raise the voting age to 35”- and only open to those who have worked in the private sector and paid taxes for at least ten years as well.
No representation without taxation.
Are you sure you want to make taxation the definition of citizenship?
I don’t see that it’s the definition of citizen; other than voting, the non-voter has the same rights as the rest of us – can own property, engage in commerce, entitled to protection of the courts, and so on. They just don’t get to decide where the tax revenues are directed, since they don’t contribute to them.
So you lot stop shy, or disabled people from having a job and then you ban them from voting. Evil far right nonsense.
No-one stops them from getting a job except themselves and their capacity to work, or the benefits system that makes them worse of with a job.
I make videos. I edit them myself, but I’d be perfectly happy for a good shy or disabled editor to do it, so long as they can do the work well, on time and budget, and not be an annoying, whining cunt to work with. If they earn enough from that to be a net taxpayer they’re more than welcome to vote.
Rubbish. Shy people and disabled people are always discriminated from work.
The bad boys and bullies get chance after chance.
So someone who has been beaten up to suffer PTSD or some other traumatic mental illness and cannot work will be banned from voting. While the bully who beat them up will still have a vote. That is evil.
AI will take more jobs away.
Every adult should have the vote. Otherwise huge sections of the public will be ignored.
What about disabled solders who cannot work? Will they be banned from voting?
If someone is evading a productive living on the basis of being ‘shy’ they should be allowed to die at the side of the street as far as I’m concerned. This is the sort of bollocks that has reduced us to our current state.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of these green voting young females are part of the STEM workforce. I’m guessing very few.
A decent percentage work in the primary education sector alongside others who, while less committed, are easily led.
I wouldn’t be too sure. Plenty are doctors. Don’t forget the religious Nobel scientist. Rationality and religiosity are unconnected domains, and shrieking watermelon extremism is an expression of religiosity.
I know a woman who is really sound. A gifted artist, really clever at sewing just a really practical all rounder. Her political views are just totally batshit crazy.
‘Haven’t you noticed that the most passionate disrupters, yelling till puce in the face, are women?’
There’s a quote from Orwell that always gets dragged out here: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
Emil got there first!
I’d be against disenfranchising the Great Julia M for starters – let’s put that out there.
I think what is needed is to tackle left wing infiltration of the education system – basically People supporting the Greens and Corbynites simply aren’t permitted to work at the very least in the education system and arguably shouldn’t be receiving public money at all. Without public subsidy this crap would wither on a vine very quickly.
yes at xmas i got comprehensively out argued by two 11 year olds on
Green policies -plant more trees and re-introduce wolves
Gaza -they are killing infants why would anyone support that?
Tax millionaire footballers to cease inequality.
I say argued it was more asserted strongly what they’d been taught. Everything i brought pooh poohed (except my compromise of if you’re going to bring back wolves start in scotland first). They were polite i hasten to add and very bright kids. I can only hope that the brightness will eventually let them figure things out for themselves. To a certain extent must have been always thus but do feel the smuggling operation of politics under the guise of environmental stuff in education has been highly successful.
Introducing hungry wolves into Gaza might solve a lot of problems…
It is tough I agree – in 11 year olds that kind of sentimentality makes sense. It’s when you get people above 21 spouting the same rubbish that it gets concerning. Look at ‘Barry Bailey’ on here – man has less spine than my daughters invertebrates
De-fund the Grievance and Basket-Weaving studies…
And I *like* the way the modern Harpies scream.. Makes it easier for blokes to compete for the attention of the female contingent who aren’t bat-shit crazy.
I’m just glad I got that competition out of the way a long time ago. I’d be cancelled in 5 minutes nowadays. I’m set fair until one of us pegs.
I support democracy. All adults should have the vote. You cannot stop people from voting just because you disagree with them. That is tyranny and dictatorship.
If you want that democracy to last you can’t have a demos incentivised to vote for its eventual bankruptcy. There has to be fiscal realism and you’ll only get this from those actually paying for society.
Watch what happens to the UK over the next few decades if not years. And look up the reasons for the IMF bailout in the 70s.
So disabled soldiers will be banned from voting?
Disabled policemen, firemen, coast guards injured trying to protect or save people will be banned from voting for being disabled?
That is an evil cruel policy to ban people from voting just because they are disabled or traumatised by a horrific accident or attack or illness.
And shy people and autistic autistic people will be banned from voting because they are discriminated against.
Don’t know why you’re putting ‘shy’ in there. Quite a few commentators on here work in IT, which notoriously has a lot of shy, autistic people working and being paid well. Also the quants people in investment funds. The more esoteric areas of law and finance.
There are lots of well-paid jobs in safe environments for shy or autistic people, and lots of shy or autistic people working in them.
That’s a normative claim – why should they have the vote? Other than your assetion, I mean: that carries no more weight than me saying only redheads should have the vote (no, I’m not, btw).
That’s not what’s being proposed, you blockhead. The suggestion is that we prevent people from voting who have no stake in the system, and have a perverse incentive to vote themselves an increasing share of other people’s wealth. I am happy to see any tax-paying individual vote in whichever way he / she / it pleases
So some con artist who cons old ladies out of their pension keeps the vote.
While disabled or traumatised ex soldiers, police, fire service,, and coast guards are stopped from voting for having no STAKE in society.
“So some con artist who cons old ladies out of their pension keeps the vote.”
Assuming he gets caught, no he wouldn’t because he’d be in prison and thus wouldn’t have a vote anyway.
One day you might learn to read, Barry.