Thoughts on Feminism 154


This is not a blog you should come to, if you want to encounter a neatly packaged bunch of received political ideas that conform to any convenient label. If you can only stand views that do not offend the “right” or the “left”, or which stay within the confines of the “politically correct”, then go read elsewhere.

Recently I have taken on the shibboleths of ultra feminism, in response to a series of articles published in the Guardian by feminist writers on the Assange and DSK cases, and on Kenneth Clarke’s remarks on rape. The writers in question – including for example Eve Ensler and Zoe Williams – self-describe as feminist writers. I am not applying the description to them.

My views on these matters plainly cross what is viewed as a boundary of acceptable or conventional thought for some of my regular commentators. It is therefore sensible of me to set out those views in a logical form here, so we can identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and try to consider with each other whether any of us wish to reconsider our views.

First, on feminism in general. I recognise that there is a power imbalance in society to the detriment of women. The glass ceiling still is firmly in place. Alpha male behaviour is still overly rewarded by the cutthroat system on which our political economy is organised, to general detriment. We really do have a society where male sociopaths dominate; Tony Blair is its poster boy.

I think that palliative measures on female equality, for example on equal pay, have been a good and important thing. But they have not even achieved their limited objective, nor succesfully tackled the difficulties of women in achieving power and promotion. I do not believe, in any sense, that women’s lack of power in society is because they should rightly be concentrating on subsidiary roles, either as homemakers or in the workforce.

But I believe that palliative measures have done pretty well all they can to improve this situation, and that no fundamental change is possible unless we reform our society itself to one which operates on a more cooperative model and in which consumption, wealth and waste of resources are not the primary goals. Then aggression and selfishness will not be rewarded as they now are.

I do believe that there are differing masculine and feminine personality traits, and that it is true that cooperative and empathectic behaviour is viewed as more feminine. But there is of course massive overlap within male and female populations, and there are many men who are also disadvantaged within the present system by their more societal attitude – just as there are female Rebekah Brooks (Update I can see I am going to have to keep doing this as it is very difficult to reason with feminist ideologues. In response to a comment, I am plainly putting forward Rebekah Brooks here as the female equivalnet of Tony Blair who I cite above, the ultra-succesful sociopath. I am not saying that all career women are like Rebekah Brooks.)- but a balance of disadvantage lies currently with women.

But- when it comes to sexuality itself, I think that sexuality is a wonderful fact of existence, which should be celebrated in full. I applaud any form of pleasure giving cooperation, that does not harm others, between consenting adults. But I do not regard sex as in any way sacred or mystic.

I believe that sexuality is just another human trait which people should be able to use, if they so choose, for economic gain, just as they can use their muscles or intellect in other ways. I therefore have no problem with prostitution, striptease, or advertising images. The coercion and violence which often accompanies prostitution could largely be remedied (as with drugs) by legalisation and regulation. If people wish to sell their sexuality, I believe they have a right to do so.

Nobody should ever be forced to.

Rape is a terrible crime. I believe that it should receive a very long jail sentence indeed. My view is that custodial sentences – as opposed to other punishment – should be reserved only for those who are a danger of committing violence to others. Non-violent crime should be punished in other ways. Rape is a violent crime and society should rightly be protected from rapists by long jail sentences. However, Kenneth Clarke was right; every crime can have aggravating or mitigating circumstances, even murder. There is nothing sacramental about rape that makes it different to murder and mystically unified, incapable of being worsened by use of a weapon, death threats, duration of offence etc.

For some feminists rape is not just a disgusting and violent crime, but a totemic act, indicative of wider male domination of women in society. There is some correlation (though not absolute) between this view, and sex-negative feminism, which views the act of penetration itself as an act of male dominance, and regards feminine heterosexuality as in itself tending to enforce a submissive role in society. This feminist tendency is completely opposed to the use of female sexuality by women for commercial gain, and thus virulently opposed to prostitution, stripping, advertising images, etc.

These sex-negative feminists have what I would call a dog-whistle response to allegations of rape, tending to an immediate presumption that the man must be guilty – this blog has previously pointed to a number of such articles on both Julian Assange and DSK, of which yesterday’s really badly researched article by Liz Willams can stand as an example – in which they are undoubtedly arguing that the man is guilty. They also argue for a lower standard of proof in rape trials than other criminal trials.

I have an extreme aversion to this line of argument. It is extremely unfortunate that rape will always be, in most cases, a hard crime to prove, for reasons which are obvious. But plainly false allegations of rape do exist, and the evil of false conviction is so great we have to continue to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. If that principle disappeared in rape trials, other categories would soon follow.

The political establishment frequently uses sexual allegations against threatening dissidents to discredit them. That was done against me, it is what was done by Murdoch to Tommy Sheridan, it is being done against Julian Assange, and there is strong reason to believe it may be what is being done against DSK. Here are some facts I did not refer to yesterday.

The suite which Diallo entered after the alleged rape was empty and adjoined DSK’s suite, with a party wall. She had entered it twice with her electronic keycard before going to DSK’s suite, and she entered it again after the alleged rape. She had consistently lied about what she did after the alleged rape, and only admitted she had entered the adjoining suite after shown the electronic keycard record. She then changed her story to say she had returned and cleaned it – which begs the question, what had she done in there the previous two times?

This is important because the keycard records show that the hotel general manager himself had entered, rather surprisingly, that same adjoining suite that morning, before the alleged rape. As the records do not show when someone left, we do not know if he met her in there, or if he was in there during the consensual or forced sexual encounter next door. What we do know is that he telephoned the Elysee Palace before the alleged rape was reported to the police, and briefed Sarkozy’s aides.

Why I get so completely infuriated with the Enslers and Williams of this world is that they don’t stop to think why Assange or DSK or Sheridan might suddenly find themselves exposed to this kind of attack. Has the far left just gained in the Scottish Parliament its most important electoral positions in the UK for decades? Is Wikileaks threatening the whole edifice of US official secrecy, illegal killing and duplicitous foreign policy? Is the IMF being steered gently leftwards at a time of huge currency crises for the West?

The ultra, sex negative feminists cannot even start to consider that they ought perhaps to consider if there is a wider context. If the accusation is sexual then they automatically obey the dog whistle.. Of course the woman is telling the truth! And they fill the columns and airwaves to the delight of the right extablishment, whose obedient attack dogs the ultra feminists have become.

That is, of course, why the allegations are always sexual. They do so much more damage, in so many ways. The strange thing is, that if DSK or Assange had been accused of anything else, like robbing a Post Office (remember Peter Hain?), people like HarpyMarx would be extremely suspicious. But throw in a bit of sex, and the stupid idiots dance immediately to the right’s tune.


Leave a comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

154 thoughts on “Thoughts on Feminism

1 3 4 5 6
  • Jon

    > I’d like to think there may even be research funding available for such
    > important work.
    .
    I’d certainly be happy to see the creation of Men’s Studies (though you’ll have to forgive me – I believe there is a difference between Men’s Studies and Male Studies, and I don’t know what it is). I’m fine with the study of anything, providing it is done with positive intentions. However I should think that a number of people wishing to obtain funding for such a thing, or to study such a thing, should be willing to talk about misogyny, and to be open to the possibility that some of them may be suffering from it. I am entirely happy to apply the opposite condition to Women’s Studies, of course!

  • technicolour

    jon: “Misogyny reinforced (and reinforces) male dominance – whereas misandry appears to be a hollow capitalist replacement for female emancipation, as I’ve noted to Jimmy in the past.” – exactly. So well put.

    Must disagree with “Her greatest worry should be giving ammunition to her anti-feminist enemies” though. Surely it should be continuing what she does best – first hand honest reportage of state brutality. Quite agree that any flippancy can be leapt on and used against her – but honestly, I wouldn’t give it any legitimacy. She is standing up for men and women in her main work – that should be obvious to all but the few so blinkered that they can’t see their own reflections.

  • Jon

    @technicolour –
    .
    Yes, I should have said, “Her greatest worry *in making such a remark* should be giving ammunition to her anti-feminist enemies”. But I agree, it is insignificant in the scheme of things, and certainly not her greatest worry! Indeed, I am similarly certain that her reports of state violence are not restricted in their concern to women.

  • Herbie

    The issue isn’t to prove Laurie Penny as man-hater, as you put it. The issue is her casual use of misandry. It raises questions as to her bona fides in this matter. The fact that she is a young, new, left and mainstream feminist raises further questions as to how much misandry there is in contemporary mainstream feminism, a movement which knows precisely how misogyny and misandry work. I don’t believe she would be so stupid as to go on a full man-hating rant in public, but who knows what she says in private. All we have at the moment is a glimpse behind the veil, the mask if you will.
    .
    On the matter of institutional misandry there are many issues that do give cause for concern. You must take the Ritalin issue up with Jimmy. It’s not something that I knew about previous to his mentioning it.
    .
    I’m more concerned by how boys are falling behind in education, poor male healthcare and misandry in the family courts etc. and also issues of media misandry where men are often presented as stupid, of dubious intent and predatory etc. This is all quite worrying and we really do need some explanations as to why these things are happening.
    .
    There’s no secret about the above issues, and it does seem curious to me that anyone would seek to downplay them. To what purpose?

  • Jon

    Thanks Herbie;
    .
    I don’t claim to have read anything particularly worrying about male healthcare or boys performance in education, but am open to reading links if you have anything of interest.
    .
    On Ritalin, we’ve taken that up with Jimmy several times. On this board there is a widespread view that it is of concern, but not that it is in itself misandrist, and it is not my feeling that Jimmy’s repeated comments have much advanced our understanding of his view, or persuaded us of its validity. I’d nominally agree with your worry regarding the family courts, but again I’m not impressed with any view that it is organised and institutional.
    .
    I am in agreement with you that misandry is unhelpful, and there is a thin cultural layer of it that is acceptable at the moment. It doesn’t help the genuinely feminist cause at all. But I think assuming that Penny has a hidden motive, or that there is a movement deliberately orchestrated against men, is just jumping at shadows. We should look at it in all seriousness if good evidence comes to light, of course.
    .
    Meanwhile I am still curious what you think of the Angry Harry website.

  • Herbie

    Jon
    .
    You surprise me. You really haven’t heard anything about the education system failing boys or that female healthcare is prioritised over that of males, in gender specific areas? You haven’t heard of the immense problems in the family courts?
    .
    I really do find that difficult to believe.
    .
    Had you heard about the problems in the Child Support Agency?
    .
    I’d be grateful if you concentrated on what I’m arguing rather than blogs I haven’t had time to read. It seems an unnecessary and quite dubious distraction to be perfectly honest.

    Tech
    .
    That’s an interesting defence of misandry.
    .
    Jody McIntyre is by far the better activist blogger to my mind, and one less given to error.
    .
    I expect that’ll be why he’s much less likely to be incorporated into the bosum of the BBC.

  • JimmyGiro

    Jon, Technicolour, Suhayl, and the all other members of the mangina-borg-collective,
    .
    What would you say if a male teacher recommended that a particularly chatty girl, were to be prescribed Rohypnol, so as to calm her down, and improve the education of herself and those she disrupts?

  • technicolour

    Jody McIntyre’s blog is featured in the Independent.

    Despite your sad insults Jimmy, everything I have read about or seen of Ritalin predisposes me against it. I would never allow a child of mine to be put on it; male or female.

  • technicolour

    NB Herbie, if you can’t be bothered to supply proof for or references to your own argument, then I fear you undermine it by such negligence.

  • JimmyGiro

    Technicolour wrote: “…everything I have read about or seen of Ritalin predisposes me against it. I would never allow a child of mine to be put on it; male or female.”
    .
    Yet you will defend a culture of Marxist-Feminism that prescribes it to over a million boys of other families!? And don’t blame big pharma for choosing mostly boys, as they would not have an incentive to reduce their gain by neglecting to abuse girls with the drug also.

  • Herbie

    Tech
    .
    No references are needed to be surprised at Jon’s ignorance of the problems in boys’ education nor indeed male healthcare, nor the problems in the Family court nor previous problems with the Child Support Agency. Jon proffesses to be interested in feminism and these are crucial areas of feminist involvement.
    .
    It’s much much too surprising that Jon is unaware of the issues I’ve raised.
    .
    Your intervention does nothing to ameliorate my surprise. I’m afaid it does nothing more than confirm it.
    .
    I wasn’t aware that The independent was owned by the BBC, but I do note you fail to address problems in Laurie’s approach over that of Jody.
    .
    It’s almost as if some feminists are so rash that they’ll destroy the left critique all on their own, if that hasn’t happened already.

  • technicolour

    I will listen to you, Jimmy, when you express similar concern over girls and women being put on anti-depressants. Otherwise you are either just exploiting the medication of boys for your own twisted purposes, or acting as a (possibly unwitting) agent of pharmaceutical companies by seeking to obscure the real scale of the chemical drugging of our children.

    herbie: Jon politely asked for references. I second him: to which problems do you refer? I am aware of problems for both genders, for all ages, in all areas. Perhaps this universal, non-sexist critique is beyond you? Since you deliberately overlook the point about Jody McIntyre: that he is no more or less marginalised than Laurie Penny in the ‘mainstream’, it may well be.

  • Jon

    Heh, Herbie – in your enthusiasm to be mystified at my post, you misread it. I said: “I’d nominally agree with your worry regarding the family courts” i.e. I share your concern, though I believe I would disagree with your reasons for it. I should have added that I would go far as to say that there is a cultural preference for mothers, which I think is a subconscious legacy of the sexist division of roles: mother as carer, father as provider. I agree that this should be looked into.
    .
    But it does not invalidate my response, which is that there is no proof of an orchestrated conspiracy against men, which seeks to deprive fathers of their children arbitrarily, to drug young boys and so presumably to stunt their development, to deliberately provide better public healthcare to women, and so forth.
    .
    On female preference to healthcare, and the failing of boys at school, I am not certain I am aware what you mean. Maybe you mean prioritising breast cancer over testicular cancer? Girls outperforming boys at certain ages? Ratios of boy to girl school expulsions? I am guessing here! Again, if you provide references or sources, or otherwise describe these things more exactly, I will be pleased to say whether I have heard of them before.
    .
    I have fully engaged with your points, though I notice that my key questions remain unanswered. In particular, do you regard all of these topics as evidence of an organised conspiracy? It should be an easy enough question to answer. Likewise, I am keen to know whether you regard Penny and other feminists as involved with such a plan, or whether they are unwitting dupes to a cause they are unaware of. I am not trying to trap you – I simply need to know your position in order to engage with it.
    .
    Having answered all your points earlier, I proceeded to ask about the Angry Harry website to see what you thought of it. It was not at all intended to be distractive, but to measure whether you are as sensitive to misogyny as you are to misandry. That Jimmy recommends it is a substantial discredit to his position, but then he has failed to engage so often I am not quite sure what to make of his purpose. You make some valid points, but I am not sure I would recommend you taking him on as a forum wing-man!

  • JimmyGiro

    Herbie,
    .
    You’ve been ‘glooped’ by the borg-manginas. They beg your engagement, yet they never actually engage in any clear standpoint themselves, but drivel equivocations and ambivalences; for they have no vested engagement in the living purposeful heterosexual world.
    .
    To the mangina-collective, the real world , and its inconvenient facts, are the harbingers of lives un-lived; for they are neither man nor woman, they recoil from the warmth of humanity as though it was the ghost of their own sought after oblivion. They are the grateful dead amongst the living, until they feel the warmth of purpose, then they shriek like howling banshees, and run into the arms of their collective borg-ambivalence, safe from living, though still curious enough to stick their heads up from the borg-anus, to exude feminism.

  • Jon

    Thanks Jimmy. Not very helpful though, and my points stand. Perhaps your intention here is to disrupt rather than to engage?
    .
    All: incidentally, I’ve read a little of Jody McIntyre’s writing, and I think he is excellent too. I am not sufficiently well read of him or Laurie Penny, however, to think one more valuable or honest than the other.

  • JimmyGiro

    Tecnicolour squawked: “I will listen to you, Jimmy, when you express similar concern over girls and women being put on anti-depressants.”
    .
    They seek these things, for Marxist-Feminism denudes them of purposeful heterosexual life. With men denounced as dangerous and beneath them, the female is left in the un-living world of androgyny; with her human sexuality for ever mocking her ambitions within the feminist-borg-collective; her soul is torn and scared. So she seeks solace in the living death ambivalence of the drugged stupor.
    .
    Boys, on the other hand, do not seek to be prescribed Ritalin; they are definitely put upon.

  • technicolour

    “the warmth of humanity”: fail to see yours, Jimmy, until you engage with the drugging of your own daughters. Do you have daughters?

  • technicolour

    “They seek these things”

    You liar.

    The ‘un-living world of androgyny’ – man, you are mad. I mean that. In fact, you could even be a woman, albeit one equally twisted beyond belief. Are you a woman, Kimmy?

  • technicolour

    For the sane people out there; this person obviously neither has sons or daughters, otherwise they would know that the tenderness of dating still exists, and love still exists, between our young people, of whichever persuasion. Thank goodness for those young people, and down with the deathly hand of projection so accurately portrayed by someone who wants to create nothing but divide – and possibly rule. The sad thing is, they kill themselves in this terrible attempt at a useless protest. Are you alone, J/Kimmy?

  • JimmyGiro

    Technicolour winced: ““the warmth of humanity”: fail to see yours, Jimmy…”
    .
    Like moths to the flame, the mangina is both disgusted yet fascinated by the fire of men. Could it be the nagging residue of their long lost manhood, dimly silhouetted in their dark past, like the fading grin of the Cheshire cat.
    .
    The only living the mangina can muster, is to default heterosexual life itself, hence that need to find it in men’s scorn; and like demented suffragettes, they fling themselves under the galloping hooves of humanity.

  • Jon

    Heh, heh – excellent Jimmy! For some reason I was not quite so amused by your earlier intervention, which rambled somewhat; but now you are settled back, poetically, into the realms of the truly absurd, and dare I say it – madness – I am laughing heartily again. I can only surmise, in answer to my earlier ponderance, that you are here to provide entertainment, for you certainly have no inclination towards persuading people of the worth your views. I wonder, is this board set up to render an emoticon for applause?
    .
    In any case, my suggestion that Herbie not associate himself too closely with your position is well borne out.
    .
    Anyway, I digress. I shall let my previous questions to you stand, not so optimistically as a reminder for the questions you leave unanswered, but for raw material to feed into the Marxist-Feminist Computer, to see what wonderful rubbish its angry and resentful circuits might pop out!
    .
    > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/thoughts-on-feminism/#comment-317414

  • Herbie

    Jon
    .
    I’m not sure why you keep going on about conspiracies. It reminds me of that Aaronovitch tactic to deflect criticism and I suspect few on this board take him seriously.
    .
    Surely when feminists achieved power in public policy all they had to do was implement what they might term “female friendly” policies. There’s nothing controversial nor conspiratorial about that. They’re quite open about it. It’s no secret. They were rebalancing what they claimed were pro-male policies.
    .
    Is it your position that this hasn’t happened?
    .
    You’re surely not arguing that feminists haven’t been involved in changing public policy in the areas of Health, Education and Law etc?
    .
    It would be totally bizarre to make such an argument, and yet that appears to be what you’re trying to do – to distance feminism from any responsibility for the outcomes in these areas.
    .
    The point of course is that if these outcomes are negative for males then we’d need to scrutinise the feminist policies which are responsible for them and amend as necessary.
    .
    That seems quite sensible to me and I don’t understand why you’d have a problem with it.

  • Jon

    Calm down, Herbie, I wasn’t attacking you. It really is better to take me on good faith, else there is little point in having a discussion. I only “go on” about things for as long as a question remains unanswered, so you might have saved me a great deal of typing by responding to the conspiracy point several rounds earlier!
    .
    From my little reading of anti-feminism websites, and from Jimmy’s posts, I sometimes suspect an implication of conspiracy. Your suspecting Penny of an ulterior motive seemed to point to a confirmation of such a thesis. However, if you don’t subscribe to such a view, fine; your reply takes me closer to an understanding of it.
    .
    I am in agreement with you that female friendly policy sometimes exists, and no, it is not my intention to suggest that this has not happened. I don’t think I’ve ever suggested it has not. Similarly, I am all in favour of improving the situation for everyone, men included.
    .
    That would put us somewhat in agreement in general, but for a few points:
    .
    * In what sense are feminists an assistance to those who wish to run the world? I agree with Craig in a limited sense, in that some feminist talking heads may be inclined to believe a rape victim regardless of the circumstances, and so judge against men who progressives perhaps should be supporting. But I would reiterate that such a thing should not lead us to reject women’s rights, or to attenuate the improvement of circumstances for (predominantly female) rape victims. If there is something that “can be done” about knee-jerk assumption that “he dunnit” when it comes to rape – without reducing freedom of speech – then I am all ears.
    * Additionally, I think it is important to avoid misogyny, especially if one campaigns against misandry. For example, your aside of “siren scream of harpies” might be seen in the same light as the statement you objected to from Penny.
    .
    I think it is important to take a balanced approach in these things. Which is why Technicolour is equally concerned about the over-prescription of anti-depressants to women as compared to the over-prescription of Ritalin to boys – and Tech was right to insist that others agree with both points. It is for this reason that I criticised Jimmy’s endorsement of a virulently misogynist website – because the cure for practice that is harmful to males is not more misogyny.
    .
    A contributor earlier was certain that women are a substantially advantaged group, but in terms of political and professional involvement and representation, I disagree. I am happy to see source material pointing to alternative perspectives, however. Is there any academic work on your hypothesis that males are disadvantaged in educational and health terms? Again, I should be happy to read them.
    .
    I should think that on Ritalin, which is about over-prescription rather than an attack on boys in particular, there is bound to be pressure groups in existence who campaign to change that situation. I don’t know much about this topic, but broadly they would have my support. Ditto work on improving equal access for both parents to children in the family courts.

  • Herbie

    I don’t see why you’re still going on about conspiracy. Feminists have got into positions of power where they can influence and even direct public policy across a wide range of areas. No conspiracy necessary. I’m even not sure I know what a conspiracy in this area would look like. It’s simply a case of feminists in power doing feminist things.
    .
    The issue is whether or not these feminist policies have negatively impacted males in the population, and if so how do you amend these policies to ensure that doesn’t continue.
    .
    On the matter of misandry in general and there does appear to be a whole lot of it about, much more than even I’d imagined, don’t forget that violent misandry and slogans of that nature were the rallying cries for earlier feminism. There’s so much misandry about today indeed, that that’s where the focus ought to be in challenging it. Instances of mysogyny are rare by comparison to the wall-to-wall misandry that pervades our culture. Even the deep disturbing violent misandry of a Sharon Osborne or the Facebook gang of violent misandrists is not challenged where minor instances of supposed mysogyny are trumpeted to high heaven.
    .
    That’s where the power imbalance lies!
    .
    It’s within a culture like that that increasingly anti-male policies can be enacted, because there’s so little discursive resistance. Men are by nature dubious, bad, predatory and need to be contained. That’s the message that feminism has created.
    .
    If you’re clear however, that it would be appropriate to remedy these feminist policies and discursive practices to ensure more equal treatment for men then that is fine, at least for the purposes of this discussion.

  • Jon

    OK, well we’re mostly in agreement – perhaps I tend to emphasise the areas in which women’s rights need to be supported, and you tend to emphasise their male counterpart. I sense they’re hugely different dynamics, but we may have to disagree upon which suffers the greater discrimination.
    .
    I’d be willing to believe traditionalist role attitudes might affect family court decisions, and I see how that could be characterised as anti-male; though I still see the Ritalin/antidepressant issue as a capitalist rather than a feminist problem. But again I am happy to agree to disagree on that sub-issue.
    .
    > I don’t see why you’re still going on about conspiracy
    .
    I’m not going on about it – I was quoting you directly, and responding directly to that point:
    .
    > I don’t believe that feminists will ever control the world but they’re
    > certainly an assistance to those who do.
    .
    > There’s so much misandry about today
    .
    I suppose the core point I am making is that misandry has come about as a societal replacement for genuine female equality – and capitalism has either created it or latched onto it, for its own reasons. The thinking is: “hey, women don’t have the same chances in politics and in business as men, but that’s okay – have a laugh at silly chaps instead”. I agree that some of that comes from misandrists, but wherever it comes from, it is of course much easier to encourage than the wholesale social change that would be otherwise required!
    .
    Anyway, thanks for corresponding. It’s a useful learning process, I reckon 🙂

  • Suhayl Saadi

    “Suhayl Saadi begged: “Well, Jimmy, you haven’t told us what you think of Breivik.”
    .
    This ‘us’ you refer to, is it some kind of Borg collective, something of an homogeneous gloop that’s left when all the humanity is sucked out of the manginas by the sheer vacuum of their pointlessness?
    .
    Here you go girlfriend…”

    James, by ‘us’, I simply meant the readers of this blog – four million, at the last count. What was I supposed to say? Perhaps, though, you regard yourself as wholly separate, superior, from, better than, the four million of ‘us’ ordinary people? “The people of the growing, deepening mangina-borg-collective”.
    .
    Yes! All four million of us coming with the resurrected Karl Marx (and Engels too), to eat you, James!
    .
    But thank you for providing the link to your thoughts on Breivik.
    .
    Are you an ex-Leftie, by any chance? There are so many and they often seem quite bereft. Perhaps you just need a good woman with a womb inside her to keep you warm.
    .
    Hush-a-bye baby…

  • JimmyGiro

    “Perhaps you just need a good woman with a womb inside her to keep you warm.”
    .
    With that utilitarian measure of a ‘good woman’, I sense a disturbance in the Borg.
    .
    Would you recommend Harriet Harman for a good medicinal shag? On second thoughts, she’s already the un-wife of a stealth-mangina ‘husband’, Jack Dromey.
    .
    I’d hate the thought of bucketing out all his ambivalent mangina gloop from her lady bits.

  • technicolour

    The saddest thing must be to have that kind of imagination and find it acceptable, and try and structure thoughts around it. Truly people with nasty minds create their own hell.

  • Jon

    Hmm, yes. Nazis, harpies and manginas indeed – what a splendid facility for constructive engagement! Perhaps I shouldn’t laugh, but I find it is often my best antidote. Jimmy I hope won’t take offence – none is intended – if I note that I web-searched his nickname, and found that he has crow-barred his wonderfully worded nonsense into a variety of discussions around the interwebs, mostly where it was irrelevant anyway. Unsurprisingly, in most cases he receives a gratifying earful, much as he does here.
    .
    However there are a number of cases where he doesn’t get the short shrift he deserves – either on masculine support sites, or on the website of a Tea Party member. Readers may draw their own conclusions!

1 3 4 5 6