http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html

Yvette Cooper

Job: Chief secretary to the Treasury

Salary: £141,866

Ed Balls

Job: Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families

Salary: £141,866

“Mr Balls and Miss Cooper submitted regular claims for food, usually totalling up to £600 a month.”

If democracy means that the alternative to the current government is cyncial, amoral droids like Yvette Cooper then if it’s not dead it’s definitely having a long snooze

It is more than likely than some seriously hard times lie ahead for the UK. Not the relatively trivial fluff that’s come to pass so far but genuine hardship for the majority. When that happens then the lack of a decent, viable democratic choice would have serious implications.

The sooner someone hammers a stake through the heart of New Labour, and finishes it off once and for all, the better

“It is more than likely than some seriously hard times lie ahead for the UK….. When that happens then the lack of a decent, viable democratic choice would have serious implications.”

I agree completely. I happen to very much ‘like’ this Coalition, but even I appreciate that there has to be a viable alternative to its policies and actions.

Labour, in its current state of dysfunction, is not that alternative

“Mr Balls and Miss Cooper submitted regular claims for food, usually totalling up to £600 a month.”

Please sir, can I have some more?

They are loathesome for sure. But so are the smarmy lot who didn’t really win the election.

If I hear any more bollocks about our ‘terrible’ deficit I am going to drop the radio into the loo.

Never a mention of the 850 Billion bank bailouts, ever.

‘God I Hate New Labour’

Why?. If by now you do not understand that all three main parties (four if you count the SNP) are not all really the same, you never will. We like the USA live in a one party state. All that you see is for show, to make us think we have a choice, we don’t, we never have had a real choice. That is why we are in the mess we are in.

“We are told ferocious cuts must come because either the national debt was too high or that the annual deficit of the public sector was too wide.

However the level of the national debt, at 62.2 per cent of GDP in May, is still one of the lowest in the European Union. The deficit is already declining under the impact of moderate economic recovery and Labour’s mildly stimulative 2009 Budget.

The Treasury originally expected the deficit in this financial year to be £178bn. That was lowered to £163bn at the time of the Budget. The Office of Budget Responsibility now expects it to be £155bn. ”

Ken Livingstone in the Morning Star. Any comments?

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/92305

If you want a interesting read about the state of male-female relations, take a look at this:

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

It’s a bit excessive but makes some valid points.

I got as far as the “modern women are fat liberated whores” bit; fascinating.

I don’t really see what the objection to Cooper’s comments are. If the budget will hit women disproportionately (and it probably will) then that is a fact which many women would be interested in knowing. Hence, her claims are relevant and informative.

Heard from Hague yet? The answer is no.

Another attempt at distraction? Your boys are in charge now, Craig.

Otherwise I’m not sure I see what’s objectionable about Cooper’s point either. It was based on a study by the House of Commons library. The right are fond of kicking poor women, along with minorities, unionists, disabled people and poor people in general. Just read the piece posted above for the “they shouldn’t be working anyway, the sluts” angle.

The comments in the Guardian section cover it.

In essence, Cooper has made the tacit confession that under ZanuLabour, women were embezzling most of the public sector money.

This also accounts for why most jobseekers are men, not because men are work-shy, but because feminists are thieves, amongst other misandric things.

Also notice how these femo-fascists hide behind women and children as convenient stalking horses; thereby not only confirming men’s caring nature, but exposing the base betrayal to humanity that feminism really is.

“All feminists are thieves”. A startling insight; Germaine Greer, give it back now! But are all thieves feminists?

Strange how men who want women to stay at home not earning anything accuse women of theft and misandry when they do earn. It is the sign of a civilised country to pay parents for child care, by the way. You may argue that we’d all be better off in small tribes looking after each other’s children, but I’d like to see evidence that you’ve tried it.

@ technicolour

tech. said: “All feminists are thieves”

I said: “most jobseekers are men, not because men are work-shy, but because feminists are thieves”

It would seem I left out the word ‘most’ in front of the word feminists; this was done due to the style of not repeating words within a sentence. But your inclusion of the logically significant ‘All’, and for that, within actual quotations, exposes you as a liar.

tech. said: “Strange how men who want women to stay at home not earning anything accuse women of theft and misandry when they do earn.”

If you think that strange, then I put it to you: that ZanuLabour’s feminist corps, were worse than strange, for they actually made law to discriminate against employing white men, a la Harriet Harman’s ‘equality bill’. Accusing men of doing what feminists actually did, is a typical hypocrisy of feminists and their mangina supporters.

tech. said: “It is the sign of a civilised country to pay parents for child care, by the way.”

Under the feminist misandry of ZanuLabour, the concept of ‘parent’ has been replaced by state nurseries, state school, easy divorce, easy incrimination via SECRET family courts, and the default of guilty until proven innocent for all accused fathers in domestic disputes. In a civilized country…

tech. said: “You may argue that we’d all be better off in small tribes looking after each other’s children, but I’d like to see evidence that you’ve tried it.”

It would be illegal to try; for under ZanuLabour, nature is verboten; only homosexual ‘families’ are encouraged.

So only ‘most’ feminists are thieves. My apologies. What’s wrong with the rest of them? Or are they just gearing up to it?

For women generally to be blamed for New Labour and specifically for Harriet Harman is a bit like setting someone on fire & then charging them for the petrol.

Yvette Cooper is complaining that women will bear the brunt of the cuts. I don’t see how that proves that women were scroungers under New Labour, unless you assume that the cuts are only dealing with waste and fair to begin with. A Tory supporter might make that assumption, of course.

@ technicolour

“So only ‘most’ feminists are thieves. My apologies. What’s wrong with the rest of them? Or are they just gearing up to it?”

They already have the luxuries from marriage and divorce settlements.

“For women generally to be blamed for New Labour and specifically for Harriet Harman is a bit like setting someone on fire & then charging them for the petrol.”

No it isn’t. And I see that you readily swap out the word ‘feminists’ with ‘women’; you must have scored top marks in your ‘women’s studies’.

By the by, how do you femo-fascists, who quibble over the ‘all or some’ logic, despite the context, manage to sell the idea to the educationalists: that all men are potential rapists, and that women are never domestically violent?

@ Abe Rene

“I don’t see how that proves that women were scroungers under New Labour…”

That would be the same ZanuLabour that touted ‘equality and diversity’ in the workplace!?

If they were true to their words, then there would be more men employed and less on JSA, as there are as many men as women. Indeed there are more men than feminists, yet more feminists are waged by the public sector than men.

But then, if they were true to their word, they’d still have the mandate to govern.

Divide and rule, eh Mr Giro? I wonder what your definition of ‘feminism’ is? I wonder how many feminist writers you’ve read – at the moment you appear to be stuck out on the extreme edge with Dworkin. Try Natasha Walters, she’s good.

The trouble with your partial and, I feel, somewhat aggressive view is that it does men no service at all. Of course men are unfairly discriminated against in society’s own way – they get sent to die in useless wars, for one thing. That does not mean that women rule, just as Harriet Harman does not represent feminism. For an interesting take on female societies I suggest a study of the matriarchal bonobos.

I spent 3 years living in a female society. It was an EngLit course at university in the 90s. I quickly came to understand that I was not, as I’d naively assumed, an undergraduate student, I was in fact a ‘potential rapist’.

Perhaps Nick Clegg should issue an apology on behalf of all men a bit like the slavery farce.

brian; again, that’s Dworkin feminism; like Bush Christianity.

@ technicolour

“I wonder what your definition of ‘feminism’ is?”

feminism = the sum total of civilisation and humanity, reduced to matriarchal bonobos.

For whose benefit is education dumbed down; men, women, children, or Marxist-Feminists?

Have you studied the bonobos? Or, indeed, the birth of feminism; or the women’s rights movements? Are you aware of pay inequalities, job inequalities, and other ongoing discrimination against women? Otherwise you’re choosing to dumb yourself down, I think.

I’m an equalitist, by the way. It is obviously in no-one’s interest that education is dumbed down. I see you have, in fact, expanded your own vocabulary with the humorous Hollywood term ‘mangina’, which you seem to be using, however, with a straight face.

I’m discriminated against because I’m short, fat and ugly but I haven’t got any equality legislation to protect me. I demand fat, ugly, short people only short lists!

In fact I object to the term short list, it is offensive to us of restricted stature.

then, brian, you can lose weight, get fit and buy some decent threads. women (generally) have to remain women.

I’ll always be short though and therefore on average paid less and subject to a whole range of disadvantages. We should at least get a short person’s hour on Radio 4 every morning. http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/height_discrimination_short_guys_finish_last/index.html

Hi @Jimmy – you may remember that you and I previously discussed feminism, and I declared myself a feminist. I put forward my definition, which was something along the lines of: an awareness of the effects of traditional/religious misogyny; support for equal pay for equal work; support for women to enter professions that are seen, consciously or otherwise, as the preserve of men; educating men who are given to misogyny or gender discrimination; and 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).

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. Since most people here will regard those things as feminism in action, perhaps you could clarify – do you see “feminism” as the strand of thinking that argues for female dominance?

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? In the case of divorce, women tend to take more from men than vice versa simply because of the inequitable wage arrangement between the sexes, and the durability of the tradition that “the man works”. Perhaps I have this wrong, but you seem to be implying that all women are gold-diggers?

Oh and just because I’m not fit it’s ok to discriminate?

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

Wow, astonishing. I wonder what those people are doing right now. I particularly liked this bit:

“The paper will argue that there is evidence that at the same level of IQ, women are able to achieve more than men “possibly because they are more conscientious and better adapted to sustained periods of hard work”. ”

Like donkeys. Or deltas.

Otherwise, the comments are pretty good like this one:

“All this discussion is fairly irrelevant. Men and women have different and also some similar skills but we are all genetically programmed for survival, together. Basically we need teamwork and to be able to work to each other’s strengths and minimise our collective weaknesses in order to make any progress in future. Divisive talk about who is better than who is pointless and smacks of political correctness.”

Richard, Worksop

The point is, technicolour, that when you intimated that there are more men in high positions as being unfair, the gender differences at the high end of IQ, will account for this situation.

To force more women into high end jobs, based on feminist ‘equality of outcomes’, will only diminish the intellect of management.

But then that would be a boon to a Marxist-Feminist government, who would find parvenue run businesses, easier to manipulate than elite male run businesses.

I didn’t intimate it was unfair. I pointed out it hardly argued for women having a ‘special advantage’ in job applications. In fact, as you probably know, women as primary carers/parents are often unfairly discriminated against in the job market, but then the job market unfairly discriminates against most people who want to work and have a life, it seems. Why are we not all going part-time?

That aside, I’ve explained how I view the IQ test. Whatever, I find it quite extraordinary that you think the current generation of male leaders are either an ‘elite’ or fit to rule anyone.

Think we could certainly do with more maternal qualities (which men also possess, confusingly, until you realise the word denotes ‘warmth and care’) in decision making circles. Don’t you?

You didn’t say if you’d seen the Two Ronnies, btw.

No, I think men need more male qualities; it’s women who need more maternal qualities.

Feminism has screwed up two generations worth of children; we have as many boys with girlie attributes and hair styles, as girls with butch attitudes and tattoos.

The reason governments want more women in the decision making, even allowing disposable feminism to aid and abet them, is the same reason that advertisers target women: it’s because women can be easily manipulated compared to ‘cussed’ men.

What does the word maternal mean to people? It means love, warmth, care, tenderness, I think. Those are not specifically female qualities, and it seems unfair of society to have allocated such a powerful word only to one gender.

You’re saying that women are easily manipulated. How do you square this with your assertion that they’re also in charge?

I’m not sure what you mean by a butch attitude, do you mean ‘mouthy and aggressive’? I agree, that negative reading does have male connotations, as well as class connotations, unfair again, I feel. I suppose you could mean ‘spirited and self-confident’?

Naomi Klein, in the Beauty Myth, warned that the massive marketing onslaught on women would be repeated on men. I think you’re seeing the results.

On the other hand, it’s also partly a male form of preemptive self-defence to refuse to adopt an aggressive style of dress. And perhaps it’s also a bit nice for men to come out of the post war austerity era and indulge in some pleasant self-grooming. Just a shame they’re generally being sold cheap chemicals packaged to look like luxury. Can recommend coconut oil.

@ technicolour :

“You’re saying that women are easily manipulated. How do you square this with your assertion that they’re also in charge?”

I did not say they were in charge, I’m suggesting they are given top jobs in the managerial decision making positions.

The idea from the point of government, is that women who are drilled by feminism, basically have a unified outlook; unlike men, who would be more cussed, and have a higher sense of independence regarding decision making.

Now look at socialist Britain, it has far fewer businesses, and therefore more monopolies, or basically fewer managements to manage, from the government perspective.

With men at the top of most businesses, government would have to negotiate a multitude of ‘little principalities’. But with more women at the top, there would be a higher probability of a national Gleichschaltung of synchronised feminist opinion; equivalent to a cloned confederacy of businesses. A governments dream of total unified control.

Finally, off to bed. But before I go, I think I know the Marxist-Feminist you fear, Mr Giro. When I saw her, she was standing on the steps of the local community centre, surrounded by black clad bodyguards, and preventing anyone but her supporters from entering the building. She was also wearing black leather gloves on a hot sunny day. Seriously.

However, even if that person self describes as a feminist, or even if you describe her as a feminist, simply because she is in power, she is not a feminist. She is an oppressor, and feminism is, by its self-description, diametrically opposed to oppression.

As for ‘Marxist’; not aware that having read Marx, or even broadly agreeing with Marx, makes anyone oppressive, necessarily.

I happen to know a real Marxist-Feminist (I think); a good person who has everyone’s best interests at heart and works pretty tirelessly for the public’s welfare. She has her faults too, of course – doesn’t dress up to please men, for example, and can be somewhat taciturn. But she is about as oppressive as a tree.

Sorry, your last post isn’t making sense. It’s either a confusion of principles and meanings, or a deliberate attempt to try and legitimise some kind of nonsensical anti-female agenda.

You’re now insinuating that women in power are all brainwashed Nazis: of course they are when possible handpicked as candidates for their support of the leadership but so are the male MPs. I mean, huh?

You still didn’t say if you’d watched the Two Ronnies.

Or it could be a Doctor Who plot. Or a very funny joke which I’ve managed to miss?

“synchronised feminist opinion”?

In a situation in which the main engines of oppression are fundamentalist corporate monopoly capitalism and the grey psychosis of managerialism through which it is implemented, it is both amusing and ironic that some still feel it necessary to rail against ‘Marxism’ and ‘feminism’. Socialism and feminism, the two taboo words, post-Thatcher. In the USA, the supporters of McCain and Palin branded Obama “a socialist”. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

All forms of oppression ten to use similar tools and to appropriate terminologies from their opponents – so there will be much in common b/w the way Stalinist managers worked and monopoly capitalist managers work, in terms of methods of control. Nowadays, they may well use terms lifted from feminism, socialism, the Green movement or indeed any tendency that once represented a threat to their interests. Capitalism has proved almost uniquely flexible in this regard and this was something which I don’t think Marx predicted (how could he?).

As technicolour has quite rightly argued, it is the relationship of power with the system and the kinds of people who tend to make it to positions of power in the system that results in the kinds of injustices about which many people are exercised. Machiavelli and Lucretia Borgia would be better parallels than Mrs Pankhurst and Engels.

But constantly to yell: “Socialism!” and “Feminism!” is akin to screaming: “Heretic!” and “Witch!” and simply lets the Inquisition and Monarchy (i.e. the enforcers of military economic power) off the hook. In the end, as with the Palin-McCain-Obama nexus, though probably unintentionally so in the case of Mr Giro, it’s a diversion from an analysis of manner in which power is exerted in this, our increasingly monopoly-capitalist, country and world.

@ technicolour:

“”synchronised feminist opinion”?”

http://jimmygiro.blogspot.com/2008/05/democratic-fascism.html

Yes, I see you quote Popper. Quite interesting. Nothing to do with women or feminism. If you read a number of self declared feminist writers you would find a vast range of opinions; but then you wouldn’t be attacking them so aggressively, I guess.

By the way, interesting that you use Nazi tactics (‘proof’ of lower intelligence) to denigrate women. While declaring the primacy of the individual you treat others as homogenous, judgeable groups. Does that not trouble you?

@Jimmy et al:

I always worry when I see angry denouncements of “socialism” applied to our societal structures, which as far as I can make out is capitalist red, in tooth and claw. It reminds me of a relative of mine, who will first agree that New Labour were mainly a right-wing government (especially in their light-touch and tax-avoiding treatment of the wealthy classes, not to mention their damned foreign policy). He will then go on to exclaim: “Do you see where socialism gets us?”, as if the professed credentials of the party had some bearing on their vacuous, sound-bite, market-worshipping policies.

My other general observation is that your belief system is that it rotates around organised conspiracy. I don’t incidentally use that word in a perjorative sense, as some do. But there are some reasonable objections to some posited conspiracy theories on the basis of the number of people who have to co-operate with it whilst staying silent about it. You said:

“What pap these feminists use to dupe women and manginas [feminised men], 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.”

Evil intentions? I just don’t think that has been illustrated, let alone proven. You claim that the feminisation of men, and the degrading of business excellence, makes society easier to control; however I would find it hard to believe that anyone would set out such a policy deliberately, nor would an army of (female?) implementors carry it out without comment.

The problem with the perspective you present, I think, is that because you have some good points – on Ritalin, and the gender bias towards mothers in the family courts – you are too easily convinced on other points in order to paint all problems as stemming from an amorphous and deliberately evil ‘feminism’.

You claim to hate feminists and love women, presumably to nip accusations of misogyny in the bud. But you also hold women to account for being crooked receivers of stolen rights, in effect:

“[There was] 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.”

The point you are not seeing about “[women getting] special advantages in job applications” and the idea that “there are twice as many men than women with IQs above 125″ is that alternative explanations exist. In the former case, anti-discrimination laws exist to correct an ancient discrimination, and in the latter case, the difference in readings could be down to male-written tests, or evidence of male supremacy in the psychological realm (women do less well because they have been persuaded, by the male-dominated culture, that they are less able).

That brings me on to the point of: how much has society feminised, exactly? Men still control politics, the courts, the boardroom, upper management and business generally, and that includes news/media groups who have a disproportionate impact on our cultural direction. I believe that this arrangement is the effect of the transmission of a ‘masculine superiority meme’ that was invented by male-dominated organised religion, and it trickles down to our culture now, from one generation to the next, propagated by men and women alike, and not always consciously. So, rather than seeing male dominance in a particular area to be a sign of natural justice, I think it would be a good thing for this to be corrected.

Finally, Suhayl offers some very good reasonings about the effects of rampant international capital, but you don’t seem to engage with those points. Surely on this, and on the various other points that have been put to you, you might claim to consider them, as part of the natural spirit of enquiry?

@technicolour – Naomi Wolf, not Naomi Klein. But it’s a good mistake to make: Klein has some excellent work out.

jon, of course. another case of ‘synchronised feminist opinion’ maybe (“Yes! We’ll call them all Naomi!”)

Jon: “I always worry when I see angry denouncements of “socialism”…”

I’m sure you do.

Jon: “My other general observation is that your belief system is that it rotates around organised conspiracy…”

Feminism is organised to promote feminism, therefore it is a conspiracy.

Jon: “Evil intentions? I just don’t think that has been illustrated, let alone proven…”

The Ritalin essay, with the graphed data, was illustration and proof enough.

Jon: “The problem with the perspective you present, I think, is that because you have some good points…in order to paint all problems as stemming from an amorphous and deliberately evil ‘feminism’.”

I say all problems caused by feminism are the fault of feminists.

Jon: “The point you are not seeing about “[women getting] special advantages in job applications” and the idea that “there are twice as many men than women with IQs above 125″ is that alternative explanations exist.”

Why bother with inferior ‘explanations’?

Jon: “That brings me on to the point of: how much has society feminised, exactly? Men still control politics, the courts, the boardroom, upper management and business generally, and that includes news/media groups who have a disproportionate impact on our cultural direction. I believe that this arrangement is the effect of the transmission of a ‘masculine superiority meme’ that was invented by male-dominated organised religion, and it trickles down to our culture now, from one generation to the next, propagated by men and women alike, and not always consciously. So, rather than seeing male dominance in a particular area to be a sign of natural justice, I think it would be a good thing for this to be corrected.”

So that’s what you get up to in ‘women’s studies’.

Jon: “Finally, Suhayl offers some very good reasonings about the effects of rampant international capital…”

No he doesn’t.

There’s another one who I mix-up with the two Naomis and who writes in a similar area. But she’s not called Naomi. What’s her name…? Can’t remember. Oh well, let’s just call her Naomi as well.

Apart from all the valid criticisms of IQ tests already mentioned; they can be useful as part of a psychological battery in relation to identifying particular aspects of actual learning disability and possibly also in genius (the definitions of this latter vary hugely), but if you’re basically ‘average’ or above, they’re pretty dodgy and partial measures altogether. The controversy over people of African origin being an example. Remember that university professor who claimed that Africans were not as clever as white people? He had his genes analysed and discovered that he was around 11% African. The whole thing is a nonsense.

Incidentally, I remembered that while males have a higher percentage in the ‘above-average’ IQ cohort, they also have a higher percentage in the ‘below average’ IQ cohort, at a level of 1.5 to 1.0 (male: female ratio).

So, while men are cleverer, they are also thicker.

I feel sure that my wife would heartily agree with the second half of that sentence!

In whose eyes are alternative explanations ‘inferior’? Only in yours, Mr Giro; just as statements like ‘I say all problems caused by feminism are the fault of feminists’ are quite plainly dumbed down versions of the reality.

You’ve addressed very few of my points – including the wide range of opinions found in feminist writers; the pay discrimination against women; the career imbalances; the use of women as low-paid careworkers; your use of Nazi/eugenic tactics to denigrate women. You’ve addressed very few of Jon’s points: the cultural dynamics; the origins; the history. You’ve addressed none of Suhayl’s, as far as I can see.

Is there any further point in taking you seriously? Or are you wedded to your limited and rather hysterical point of view? Have you no respect for the women who progress society – Mary Robinson, Allyson Pollock, Gareth Pierce, Mo Mowlam, the miner’s wives, the Sufragettes and on and on, including all the Naomi’s? Are you that gripped by your testicles? They’re smaller than the world, you know.

In fact, the conflation of ‘feminists’ and ‘women’, and the violent agression directed at both, is reminiscent of the BNP’s use of ‘Zionists’ when they mean ‘Jews’. You wouldn’t have anything in common with the BNP leadership, would you, Mr Giro?

Yes, that’s it, technicolour. It’s the Pre-Raphaelite vision of a dreamy woman on a boat, it’s the National Socialist vision of women being baby-factories and repositories of everything ‘home and hearth’, it that very early-mid-C20th obsession with (mis-)using science as a tool for racial and sexual superiority. Funny, in places, it reminds one of Alfred’s hypothesising. It’s ahistorical and ultimately vicious.

It is, aye. The cardboard cut out version of the psyche. Fit my simple stereotype or else.

I quite like Christy Moore sometimes:

Now the earth is a witch, and we still burn her.

Stripping her down with mining, and the poison of our wars.

Still to us, the earth is a healer, a teacher, and a mother.

A weaver of a web of light, that keeps us all alive.

She gives us the vision to see through the chaos.

She gives us the courage, it is our will to survive.

it’s probably better heard, there’s a fine acoustic version.

otherwise, it’s just so sad. I wonder what the percentage is of BNP men whose wives secretly dislike them. Or the percentage who can’t ‘get’ a woman, or the percentage whose women have screwed them over?

Are they so set on maintaining their artifical male cut-out (‘butch’ ‘cussed’ ‘individual’ ‘strong’) that they can’t see their view of the female is not an attractive one, do you think?

As I said, sad.

Anyway, don’t let him wind you up, technicolour. Billions of women (and men) from an assortment of backgrounds, etc. around the world know how it works in relation to gender.

If one meets some of the amazing women who work with Women’s Aid, it is tribute to their humanity that they don’t hate all men (and they don’t). If you’ve seen women across the country with injuries inflicted by fists, boots and minds, it makes you ashamed and sick to the stomach.

Statistically, most – not all – sexual abuse of children is committed by men and as we know it screws people up forever.

Let’s not even begin to discuss genital mutilation.

I think it is important that such facts are stated. This is not to demonise men – which would be easy to do, if one possessed the sort of mindset which thinks that flinging out a statistic about IQ amounts to coherent argumentation – but simply to state that around the world, overwhelmingly, women are oppressed by men (and often – eg. in the case of genital mutilation – by other women in collusion with patriarchy).

In some states, when there’s a marriage break-up, men get the kids and the entire legislative framework is directed at serving patriarchal power. I know women personally in this country who have lost their kids that way and cannot get access, in spite of the law because they are too afraid that their own families – relatives – will be assaulted or ruined by their husbands’ families.

So yes, there are inequities against men and these are wrong. But if one sets these on a worldwide scale, there is no doubt that the axis is tilted very much against girls and women. God sake, people abort female foetuses in India! Chinese girl-babies were killed during the One-Child Policy days (one understands why China had that policy, but this was the terrible ‘side-effect’ of it). This goes on, day after day after day. It’s in our face. I am NOT “a feminised man”! Ha! That’s a real joke; it’s pure bullshit. I AM in favour of the liberation of humanity from its shackles.

Those are great lyrics, technicolour! Christy Moore. It’s the Irish “aye” again. See – it surfaces when you least expect it! Aye.

@suhayl: I’m unwound; the poor bloke probably has money worries on top of everything else. Thanks for your brave list; it’s strangely easy to forget.

@jimmygiro: rereading, am very curious to know how you blame the prescribing of Ritalin (which we all agree is wrong) on women, or what you refer to as feminists, in any way? And to which ‘graph and essay’ do you refer? I think you produced none.

technicolour :”It is, aye. The cardboard cut out version of the psyche. Fit my simple stereotype or else.”

…Or else you’re a misogynist or member of the BNP?

Doesn’t follow, please address the points above?

Suhayl Saadi: “Statistically, most – not all – sexual abuse of children is committed by men and as we know it screws people up forever.”

Sexual abuse of children is statistically rare, especially compared to physical abuse and murder by parents, of which Mothers are the main perpetrators:

http://www.breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromDHHS.php

Murder is even rarer than sexual abuse. “Physical abuse” covers a very broad spectrum. The data you post is from the US, where people are convicted for slapping a child in a supermarket.

Again, please address the points. No-one here is suggesting that women are perfect. There are some deeply unpleasant people of both genders. They are, in both genders, in the minority.

You seem to have been hurt by a woman in some way. I almost understand: I myself was once savaged by an Alsation, and it took me a long time not to twitch when I saw one again. And I like dogs.

But is shrieking ‘NaziFemoZanuFascistthieves’

at women really any way to behave? There’s a fascinating discussion to be had, I suppose, about precisely how the genders are being exploited, in their different ways, but this is not it.

No-one here, you note, is attacking men.

So: ritalin, unequal pay, career inequality, care-work, and capitalism please. Bit of a long list, by now.

Indeed, murder is more rare; but not as rare as feminists telling the truth.

The point is that mother sugar-and-spice maternal loveliness, is more than three times more deadly to her own children than nasty wicked PATRIARCHAL daddy.

technicolour,

I’ve really answered most, if not all, of your points; it’s just that you don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.

Feminists are a political evil, and just as the scorpion said to the frog: “I’m a scorpion, it’s my nature to sting.” So it’s the nature of feminists to be evil.

when I say savaged, it was more of a playful nibble. What society needs, I feel.

“The point is that mother sugar-and-spice maternal loveliness, is more than three times more deadly to her own children than nasty wicked PATRIARCHAL daddy.”

This is it! The fact that you, poor person, obviously believed in this ‘sugar and spice’ image of ‘maternal loveliness’ in the first place, is why you are so repulsed and disgusted by the fact that women can behave humanly ie sometimes badly. You’re not alone, conditioning is a fascinating thing.

And so to bolster your feelings of betrayal and disgust you seek out the VERY rare occasions when a mother kills her child (in a different country) and flag the fact that it happens more frequently than the VERY rare occasions of patricide, to support your position.

And yet that one statistic can so easily be explained by the fact that women generally spend much more time with their children. To know more usefully, you would have to look at each case.

List of points (ritalin etc) above. I have another one: could you please name a ‘femininist’.

However, there is something lovely about maternity, just as there is something lovely about paternity. People are at their most lovely when they are happy, I find. If you’re saying that the working conditions in the UK are making it increasingly hard for women, and their families, to be happy, I’d agree with you.

technicolour: “List of points (ritalin etc) above. I have another one: could you please name a ‘femininist’.”

The Ritalin link… again… :

http://jimmygiro.blogspot.com/2008/08/educating-ritalin.html

And everyone knows the most powerful feminist in the UK: Harriet sugar-and-spice Harman… otherwise known as Mrs. Dromey

Harriet Harman, again. In what way is she a feminist?

technicolour wrote: “Harriet Harman, again. In what way is she a feminist?”

That’s it, I just won this debate!

very pleased for you: can you explain how?

have just looked at your ritalin link: you do not show how the fact that more women are teachers has anything to do with the fact that more children are being prescribed ritalin.

I’m sorry Mr Giro, I think you’re just having fun. Anyway, eleven o’clock, time to knock off. Look forward to hearing why you think Harriet Harman is a feminist. In the meantime, since you seem to know so much about the subject, could you name another feminist? I’d be interested in your critique of their opinions, too.

Just to give you a clue, no feminist would have supported the attack on Iraq.

Before you can give anybody a clue, you first have to get a clue.

No, rudeness isn’t the answer, Mr Giro: the answer’s the answer. Why do you think Harriet Harman is a feminist?

technicolour wrote: “Just to give you a clue, no feminist would have supported the attack on Iraq.”

JimmyGiro: “But with more women at the top, there would be a higher probability of a national Gleichschaltung of synchronised feminist opinion…”

Q.E.D.

Mr Giro: you didn’t answer my points about how policies that are not remotely socialist in nature are sometimes referred to as “socialist” in order to demonise them, nor how a deliberate, evil conspiracy involving a large number of people remains quiet, against all the odds.

You also don’t explain how your explanations regarding gender inequities are preferable to mine, and if you get stuck answering a point, you resort to patronising. Many of my points remain entirely unanswered.

This board is partly about the cut and thrust of debate, but over the years I’ve found it to be a great modifier and moderator of my perspectives too. Accordingly, I find that sometimes folks here award the other person the point, acknowledge an interesting contribution, or divert to light relief. But I’ve never seen you give any ground whatsoever, not an inch, and your posts appear to be driven by anger rather than the spirit of enquiry.

As per other comments, I wonder that you have received a great hurt from women in the past, and have brought your aggressive strands of thought in line with that. This is not intended to be judgemental nor dismissive; just a recognition that our views sometimes stem from our human responses to negative events rather than non-emotional, rational analysis.

Indeed, if nature’s decision-making coin had landed on its other side, I might be wearing your shoes: for my formative years, my mother was a violent authoritarian, and if the trauma had turned me to angry misogyny, I claim that it would not have been my fault. We’re all human Jimmy, and we all have failings. We just have to recognise it.

Jon: “…you didn’t answer my points about how policies that are not remotely socialist in nature are sometimes referred to as “socialist” in order to demonise them, nor how a deliberate, evil conspiracy involving a large number of people remains quiet, against all the odds.”

Not so long ago, in a little place called Germany…

No responses to the increasing list of unanswered questions from several, plus a fresh and unnecessary comparison to the Nazis?

Come on Jimmy, you seem pretty smart. But you’re dancing around the issues and refusing to confront them head on. The discussion will fizzle out quickly if you don’t at all engage with your interlocutors.

“…fizzle out quickly…”

Is that related to ‘slowly exploding’, or ‘being savaged by inanimate objects’?

probably related to the way a sparkler fizzles out quickly, I expect. You know, fff, – zt.

Feminism is all about women supporting each other, you say blindly, I say kindly, right? It’s also a stance against oppression, inequality and victimisation. Ergo, no feminist would have agreed to launching an illegal aggressive (male led) attack on women and children in another country, even if they didn’t mind the men being killed (and they would). That’s just not feminism, no matter what the warmongers call themselves. Glenda Jackson, for example, opposed it.

Anyway, too many good points swimming around unanswered now, for me. Ritalin, Mr Giro? It really isn’t women, you know, but then tackling the pharmaceuticals needs hefty research and some courage.

Jon, technicolour, I salute your attempts to engage, but he ain’t interested. He’s got views with which he is comfortable and he’s going to stick with them and will iterate them at the appropriate, or inappropriate, juncture.

It’s much easier to blame everything on one or other group of people and then stick everyone/ all ideologies which you don’t like in with that group. It protects one from acknowledging that the ‘other’ might just have a point as well and also that the world – and human society in general – is an incredibly complex entity. No-one really, has been able to produce a schema which accounts for everything in human society, let alone the universe. That’s what religions attempt to do. But of course, they all disagree with one another and within each of them as well. So, really, it’s a bit like joining the [insert name of religion or political cult], you get a potted explanation of everything. But, as that bearded bard said, there really are more things on earth and in heaven than can be fathomed in one’s philosophy.

The points were answered, but your feminist programmed brain cannot accept input unless it is associated with a pink dog-whistle.

The pharmaceutical companies don’t tell the, mainly feminist, educational psychologists to mainly use Ritalin on boys, that is exclusively the responsibility of the feminist controlled education system.

OK, I’m out too, unless you’re willing to engage, Jimmy. There is agreement here amongst people I’ve come to view as consistently reasonable that you’ve +not+ answered the points put to you at all, and I see it the same way.

I should be interested to have a conversation here or on your blog with you at a later date, should you be happy to answer questions directly.

Substantiate the claim that ‘educational psychologists’ are mainly feminists? No, thought not. Analyse what kind of feminists they are, if any – Dworkin or Greer? No, thought not. Resort to abuse instead? Yep. Poor show, Mr Giro.