You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘media’ category.

375002_10151358543662091_782685359_n

Advertisements

From The D.C. Writeup;-

Feminists everywhere, rejoice! Your day has finally come! The groundwork laid by the Suffragettes, sown by the bra-burning flower womyn of the 60s, fertilized by the sexual liberation of the 70s, and watered by Roe v. Wade has finally borne fruit! The glass ceiling is shattered! Women are finally in a position to … sexually harass other women? Women are finally in a position to … find their husbands (or fathers … or brothers) without jobs?

In two honest-to-goodness, not-making-this-stuff-up stories this week, the USA Today and the legal blog Above the Law have covered two stories that should make feminists cringe, not rejoice. But rejoice is exactly what they’re doing.

In a story that makes normal people blush, but has made some bloggers a little *ahem* hot-and-bothered, a Delaware law firm has been hit with a sexual harassment suit after they failed to deal with creatively titled “girl-on-girl sexual harassment.” In this case, a female partner allegedly sexually harassed a female associate in the firm, telling her sexually explicit things that I don’t really feel comfortable repeating here. Some commentators admitted that this illustrates that “women can be just as creepy as men” and “just as capable of creating a threatening work environment” at the same time. Others have used the story to show that career women are finally in a position to “break from the stereotypical harassment situation of a female victim going up against an old boys’ network.” Depicting this story as a boon for the women’s movement disgusts me.

The other story is less perverse, but no less disheartening. In a banner week for feminists, the USA Today also reports that the recession has hit men the hardest, where of the 6.4 million jobs lost this year, 26% of those jobs were lost by women and a whopping 74% of those jobs were lost by men. The story cites to the fact that a lot of the jobs “typically” performed by men, such as construction and manufacturing, are part of industries hardest hit by the recession, whereas “women’s jobs,” like health care, education and local government, are being laid off less (some even seeing growth) and are receiving the most stimulus money.

Instead of raising the concern that perhaps these women are now going to have to work two jobs to support their family or considering the psychological effects this may have on men (and the negative impact these statistics may have on women because of their husbands’ unemployed status), feminists see this as a good thing. The President of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (as a side note – is there an Institute for Men’s Policy Research?) actually stated, “It was a long historical slog to get to this point.” Another woman, who wrote a book often used in feminist study classes entitled Creating Rosie the Riveter, was cited as saying that “the image that the man has to be the breadwinner has changed.”

So congratulations, feminists, you now have equality. But equality at what expense?

This is really another example of people who are trying to “help” or trying to “represent the voiceless” completely losing touch with reality. Is having the equal opportunity to harass another human being really a boon for the feminist movement? Is having males lose more jobs than females really the equal opportunity that the Suffragettes imagined? Neither of these stories are good situations for anyone. These are things you wouldn’t wish on humanity in general, let alone on an entire gender. They shouldn’t be seen as a boon to the women’s equality movement, they should be seen for exactly what they are: tragic events that affect and damage everyone together. That’s equality.

More here..

http://www.thedcwriteup.com/2009/10/for-feminism-a-pair-of-pyrrhic-victories/

~0Oo~

“How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”

Roxanne Dunbar (1969) Female Liberation As The Basis For Social Revolution

 

“Sexual harassment law is very important. But I think it would be a mistake if the sexual harassment law movement is the only way in which feminism is known in the media.”

Judith Butler (2001) LOLApress Magazine No. 2

Why, according to The Times , it’s men of course!

I wonder if The Times has also examined the links between feminism and consumerism , or investigated why the mainstream media frequently prints shameful man-bashing articles that are tantamount to a fascist hit piece ?

I urge all readers of this blog to BOYCOTT this ‘newspaper’ until it prints a retraction and gains a better understanding of the current economic situation .

Perhaps a sharp lesson in supply and demand is just what male editor Robert James Thompson needs!

After all, it is the men who have all the money and power – right?

Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.

Jews are often very stupid,  particularly  Jewish bosses who are afraid of what bright ‘Gentiles’ bring to the workplace.

..What scares them are the skills they don’t grasp. Such as our ability to multi-task. Being prepared to listen. And helpfulness and loyalty.

First of all I must apologise for the shocking racism in the above quotes. However, you may be suprised to discover that the above text is not from Nazi propaganda of the 1930’s but a recently printed article in Britain’s best-selling newspaper.

Anti-semitism of any kind is absolutely deplorable, and I must apologise for taking this route to prove a point. The text above was altered by myself from the original text below..

Men are often very stupid, particlularly male bosses who are frightened of what bright women bring to the office.

..What scares them are the skills they don’t grasp. Such as our ability to multi-task. Being prepared to listen. And helpfulness and loyalty.

So why did I have to resort to shock tactics to prove a point? For most men, this insidious sniping goes under the radar. How is this possible?

Feminism has conditioned men to accept this sort of nonsense as par-for-the-course. I urge all readers, male and female, to reject and protest against any such sentiment where you see it. Do you have children? Do you wish them to become aclimatised to this male-bashing any further?

It is also interesting to note the common usage of the word ‘male’ when referring to men in articles such as this one. A subtle attempt at dehumanisation? Animals are generally described as ‘male’ and ‘female’. Would you find it strange for the opening sentence to read ;-

frightened of what bright females bring to the office

..if so, why?

Hateful sentiments are often insidious in nature at inception. Readers who wish to see this illustrated may wish to read Freidrich by Hans Peter Richter, a sensitive first-person account of the roots of anti-semitism in pre-Nazi Germany.

The article quoted above can be found here .

Reject man-hate.

REJECT FEMINISM.

From the Mail On Sunday;-

‘Well, it has been another terrific week for fully-grown women making an exhibition of themselves. There was Amy Winehouse, heading to a police station in tears, a ridiculous bow in her unwashed hair, mascara streaking down her pasty face.

There was former Popstars winner Suzanne Shaw tumbling out of a nightclub looking the worse for wear. There was Hillary Clinton, thinking she had a hope in hell against someone young, male and virile.

There was poor Katie Holmes, reportedly ensnared by a bizarre eating ritual.

But it was the normally sane, sober-suited and serene 35-year-old mother of two Gwyneth Paltrow at the London premiere of her new film, wearing a mini skirt and wobbling bare-legged in the latest in a succession of 7in stilettos, that made me type, Carrie Bradshaw-like, this rhetorical question into my laptop: Why do rich, clever, powerful women regress into weak little girls?

If you are a man, let me enlighten you. High heels hurt. They torture the balls of your feet and cramp your toes. They over-develop the muscles in your calves and throw out your back.

They mean you baulk, like tragic Grand National horse McKelvey at Becher’sBrook, when faced withsteps, cobbles and walking in general. They make you tired, whiny and fractious.

They encourage children on the bus to give up their seat because they think you are disabled. They force you to cling on to the arm of a man, any man, to stay upright. They are, thanks, of course, to the brainwashing cult of Sex And The City, ruinously expensive.

But, most importantly, they strip women of any vestige of power, dignity, common sense or sanity.

Feminist writer Polly Toynbee argued recently that concern about appearance harms the brain function of women. She reported findings that girls waiting to try on a swimsuit performed less well at maths than girls waiting to try on a jumper.

Why? Because when women, even tiny ones (in my support group for anorexics I have a new member aged eight), think about their naked bodies, they feel overwhelmingly negative, which dents confidence.

Toynbee cited a new trend called the ‘girlification’ of women. It is reinforced by the half-dressed trollops who masquerade as icons, such as the members of Girls Aloud, who would surely feel more at home plying their trade on the streets of Ipswich.

She claims it is the reason that women are still hopelessly marginalised, that those in their 40s still earn 20 per cent less than male counterparts, that the UK has the largest pay gap in Europe and that 90 per cent of top EU company board members are still men.

A skinny, big-eyed woman wobbling in giant shoes smacks creepily of a little girl raiding Mummy’s closet. The little girl can’t walk properly, or get away, and neither can we. But why, why, why do we need women to be preserved as defenceless, self-doubting infants?

It is hugely important to the economy in these turbulent times to ensure we keep on shopping (straight men, as we all know, never bother to buy anything).

The pink pound is no longer spent by gay men; having abandoned hedonism for civil partnerships, they have swapped the frivolous, ‘feminine’ consumerism they briefly bought into for investing in sensible, tangible things, like mid-20th Century furniture and arable land.

No, the pink pound is now exclusively female. And I don’t just mean we spend it in the girls’ sections of M&S and Primark, awash as they are withsickly pink tat, adorned with fluff and sequins.

Designer fashion – the current crop of giant bags, baby dolls, floral playsuits, the list goes on and on – might not be pink, but it is equally infantilising.

Whenever I see yet another pair of bondage shoe-boots costing £500, it is as if some man is patting me on the head, saying, ‘Don’t you worry your pretty head about a thing’, and it makes me wild that women are still stupid enough to buy this stuff.

But buy it we do, because we want to be loved.

High heels can never be ironic, for the same reason Sex And The City was never a satire: they both render women pathetic, cash poor, empty-headed – when your feet are killing you, you think of nothing else – man-chasers.

Not in a Jane Austen way (after all, Emma, Lizzie, Anne et al were nothing if not pragmatic manipulators) but in a way that means we now dress as though we are about to hang upside down, hairless, faux pre-pubescent legs wrapped around a pole. And that, surely, is not good.’

~o0o~

This is the danger of brainwashing half the population of the western hemisphere into believing myths of oppression that legitimise freedom of action without conscience or responsibility, as propagated by feminism.

After a brief regurgitation of the wage gap myth, the author explains how women are now oppressing themselves in their choice of clothing!

This is despite the fact that ‘lipstick feminists’ consider the right to dress seductively as (social rather than sexual) empowerment!

The one thing notably missing here amongst all this talk of ‘oppression’ and empowerment is discussion of behavioral responsibility , something that feminists prefer to sweep aside!

Perhaps straight men who ‘never buy anything’ should boycott the Mail On Sunday until Liz Jones discontinues her misandric generalisations, and directly challenges feminist cognitive dissonance with regard to the ‘clothing as oppression / empowerment’ dilemma that feminism has created!

From The Daily Mail ;-

‘A man who lost his job after being falsely accused of a horrific sex crime has been found hanged in a shed.

Ian Adams, 51, was suspended and then sacked from his job at a local IKEA store after his employers received a letter saying he had raped a woman and her two children.

The writer claimed to be a journalist on a local newspaper, but the name and address in the letter were false and the author has never been traced.

Police confirmed that Mr Adams, from Highams Park East, London, had never been arrested or convicted of a sexual offence or had any complaints made against him.

Mr Adams’ life went downhill as he struggled to recover from the accusations.

He failed to get his job back after being sacked in January. His drinking led to problems with his partner and he spent the last few nights of his life sleeping in a storage shed at the bottom of the block of flats in which he lived.

A neighbour, who did not wish to be named, said: “If it wasn’t for that letter he would still be here, I am sure of it.

“He was happy and full of himself when he was working, he was more or less dancing on his way to work. But he went from working all day to doing nothing.

“He went down and down, poor chap, and we should have seen the warning signs.”

Another neighbour, Darren Lupton, 34, said: “He was doing well, he was off the drink for a long time when he had the job, but when he lost it he was devastated.”

Mr Adams worked for a contractor named Symonds employed by IKEA to collect trolleys. Both Symonds and Ikea appeared to blame one another for the loss of his employment. Ikea claimed that it had only suspended him from the premises until Symonds had carried out an investigation, while Symonds claimed that it had no choice but to let him go because Ikea would not let him work on its premises. ‘

~o0o~

‘All men are rapists and that’s all they are.’

-Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983

‘Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience.’

-Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.

From http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3671857.ece ;-

‘A senior judge will deliver an outspoken attack on the Government today, declaring that “all of society’s social ills” can be traced to breakdown of the family.

Mr Justice Coleridge, a Family Division judge, will give warning of an epidemic of family failures, claiming that children born into broken homes are turning increasingly to drink, drugs and crime. He will argue that the collapse of the family is as potent a threat to the country as terrorism, crime, drugs or binge drinking.

In his speech to family lawyers, the judge will say that there has been a collapse of one of the building blocks of society, and that in urban areas family life is “in meltdown or completely unrecognisable”. He will lay the blame at the “neglect” of successive governments.

The judge, who is in charge of family courts across southwest England, will say: “In some of the more heavily populated urban areas of the country, family life is, quite frankly, in meltdown or completely unrecognisable. In some areas of the country, even including the more urban parts of the sleepy West in which I operate, family life in the old sense no longer exists. So I suggest that the general collapse of ordinary family life, because of the breakdown of families, in this country is on a scale, depth and“ breadth which few of us could have imagined even a decade ago.”

The judge has presided over cases of divorce, children in care and family break-up for eight years. Last year he supervised attempts in the courtroom to negotiate a voluntary divorce settlement between Heather Mills and Sir Paul McCartney.

He will argue that he is not criticising single parents. “I am not saying every broken family produces dysfunctional children, but I am saying that almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family,” he says. “And what is government doing to recognise and face up to the emerging situation? What is it doing to halt the decline or even reverse it? The answer is very little, and nothing like enough. It is fiddling whilst Rome burns.”

The judge will give his speech to lawyers from Resolution, formerly the Solicitors’ Family Law Association, in Brighton.’

~o0o~

Feminism is a disease on modern western society. All of the above can be traced back to the planned destruction and alienation of fatherhood and traditional family values by feminism.

Parental alienation, divorce training schools masquerading as female-only DV centres, ‘family courts’ that are for anything but the family..

These are the weapons of division that this hateful female supremacist movement has insidiously unleashed upon western society resulting in family breakdown, gang culture and widespread social decay.

This system has only existed because MEN HAVE TOLERATED IT.

It is time to say ‘ENOUGH’ TO FEMINISM.

‘Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries, matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffered Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night — she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question — “Is this all?’

– Betty Friedan, feminist divisionist hate monger

From http://www.thefire.org/ ;-

‘COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., March 31, 2008Two students at Colorado College were found guilty of violating the school’s conduct code regarding “violence” after they distributed a satirical flyer mocking a publication of the Feminist and Gender Studies program. As part of their punishment, student Chris Robinson and a second student have been required to hold a campus forum discussing issues brought up by their satirical publication. The students have turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

“One flyer that mentions ‘male castration’ is not violence, but a flyer that makes fun of it by mentioning ‘chainsaws’ is prohibited? Both should be protected, but the double standard and lack of respect for freedom of speech in this case is simply staggering,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Colorado College is brazenly violating its own promise of freedom of expression, as well as both fairness and common sense. Colorado College should reject both double standards and censorship.”

In early 2008, Colorado College’s “Feminist and Gender Studies Interns” distributed a flyer called “The Monthly Rag.” The flyer included a reference to “male castration,” an announcement about a lecture on “feminist porn” by a “world-famous prostitute and porn star,” an explanation of “packing” (pretending to have a phallus), and a quotation from The Bitch Manifesto.

As a parody of “The Monthly Rag,” Robinson and a second student, who wishes to remain nameless, distributed a flyer in February called “The Monthly Bag” under the pseudonym “The Coalition of Some Dudes.” The flyer included references to “chainsaw etiquette,” the shooting range of a sniper rifle, a quotation regarding a sexual position from the website menshealth.com, and a quotation about “female violence and abuse” of men from the website batteredmen.com.

Shortly thereafter, Colorado College President Richard F. Celeste sent out a campus-wide email about “The Monthly Bag,” stating that “The flyers include threatening and demeaning content, which is categorically unacceptable in this community… Anonymous acts meant to demean and intimidate others are not [welcome].” The e-mail asked the authors of “The Monthly Bag” to come forward. When they did less than an hour later, they were charged with violating the college’s values of respect and integrity.

FIRE wrote to Celeste on March 21, 2008, pointing out that any punishment would contradict Colorado College’s own policies and advertised commitments to free expression. The school’s Diversity & Anti-Discrimination Policy states that “On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful that it may not be expressed.” Celeste, a former governor of Ohio, is abroad, and other administrators receiving the letter have not responded.

Two weeks after their hearing before the student conduct committee, Vice President for Student Life/Dean of Students Mike Edmonds finally wrote to the “Coalition of Some Dudes” students on March 25, stating that they had been found guilty of “violating the student code of conduct policy on violence” and that as a punishment, they would be required to hold a forum to “discuss issues and questions raised” by “The Monthly Bag.” Although Edmonds acknowledged that the intent of the publication was to satirize “The Monthly Rag,” he wrote that “in the climate in which we find ourselves today, violenceor implied violenceof any kind cannot be tolerated on a college campus.” Apparently, according to Edmonds, “the juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality” in an anonymous parody made students subjectively feel threatened by chainsaws or rifles.

“Not only has Colorado College wrongly punished students for expression that any reasonable person would easily recognize as parody that threatens no one, but according to Edmonds’s standard, countless movies, songs, and other artistic endeavors that ‘juxtapose weaponry and sexuality’ are inappropriate for the adult students of Colorado College,” Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE’s Individual Rights Defense Program, said. “Colorado College must live up to its own promises of free expression and allow its students to engage in robust debate and satireeven when some members of the campus community may feel offended.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at Colorado College and at campuses nationwide can be viewed at thefire.org.

CONTACT:

Adam Kissel, Director, Individual Rights Defense Program, FIRE: 215-717-3473; adam@thefire.org
Richard F. Celeste, President, Colorado College: 719-389-6700; president@coloradocollege.edu
Mike Edmonds, Vice President for Student Life/Dean of Students, Colorado College: 719-389-6684; medmonds@coloradocollege.edu ‘

~o0o~

A criticism of feminism is NOT  ‘hate speech’, and neither is it misogynistic. For TOO LONG feminism has been breeding anti-male sentiment unchecked. Show your support to FIRE and to these brave students!

Reclaim your right to freedom of speech!

REJECT FEMI-FASCISM!

From the Daily Mail ;-

‘Forgive me for being blunt, but if a generation of our young womanhood has taken to binge drinking, Saturday night sluttishness and “happy-slappings”, I blame the Spice Girls. There are one or two other factors, I dare say, such as the cult of consumerism, the decline of religion, easy credit, alco-pops, morning-after pills and the rest: but, if we’re going to look for scapegoats, Posh, Ginger, Sporty, Baby and Scary are, surely, obvious candidates.

Though some will no doubt disagree, and argue that the Spice Girls are simply a slice of bubblegum pop history, I believe the aspirations and attitudes of these five women go hand-in-hand with the decline of our culture over the past decade. Think back to those brilliant, suggestive, addictive pop songs of ten years back, when they swept across the nation’s playgrounds: “Well it’s a Saturday night, You know the feeling is right, Don’t you know we’ll get so high.”

Yeah! Grope, vomit, whoops: aren’t we having fun?

A decade on, the message has seeped deep into the culture, with the results plain for all to see on every High Street on, yes, any Saturday night. At first blush, of course, it was hard not to be seduced by those five perfectly branded young women. They were brash and sassy, and seemed to be driven by an unstoppable energy and a spirit of independence that defied the male race.

Looking back, alarm bells should have been ringing loud and clear. But, then, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

What we thought was the ultimate triumph of feminism was, in fact, its death knell. Girl Power was a sham, and its five proponents nothing more than desperate wannabes, not much better than today’s reality TV stars, desperate for a quick fix of fame. Now they’re on tour again, soaring above the world in their specially chartered Boeing 747, along with their crëches and their entourage.

But this time around the image they project is obviously and entirely contrived, with all that youthful zest replaced by weary cynicism. The difference between those five breezily-sexual, energetic, bouncy girls singing about Girl Power ten years back and the five sugar-coated, air-brushed, painfully-thin, desperate mums-on-tour is clear to see. Seeing them strutting about the stage in weird Bacofoil-style corsets – like trussed-up festive turkeys – in Canada this week, I found myself wishing this reunion had never taken place. I was embarrassed for them.

I also feel embarrassed for myself.

And for feminism and for Britain, whose flag has become far too synonymous with Spice Girl glory ever since Geri wore that dress nearly a decade ago. I’m embarrassed for them because, despite the fact that they already have so much, they are still desperately clinging on by their brittle, lacquered acrylic nails to the fame which they so craved when they were young, and the hunger for which, it seems, has still not sated them. All the riches and fame in the world wouldn’t be enough to feed that hunger.

Somehow, they make rather a pathetic spectacle, these Spice Women (no longer Spice Girls) clinging to youth, celebrity, a tiny bum, and the fading memory of a fabulous and fortuitous meeting with the then zeitgeist, when they sang about friends and love – and all the little girls (and the big ones, too) sang along. It all seemed so empowering at the time: the idea that girls should take charge of their own sexuality.

But did anyone stop to think what would happen next?

Now, with the dubious privilege of hindsight, we have the answer. For a start, we are now living in the Age of Easy Couplings. What chance did formal sex education have when faced with the catchy lyrics – written by men, of course – that told young girls to indulge in such things as “weekend love” and encouraged “playing games”? What it did of course was to separate love from sex.

The Spice Girls killed romance.

Their singable, suggestive lyrics took away the innocence of the playground – or at least what was left of it. And it’s never coming back. They turned difficult love into temporary sex, and reduced female aspiration to a series of consumer choices. They turned little girls into paedophile bait, and in doing so they helped destroy our concept of childhood.

And why am I embarrassed for myself? Because I admit I once rather liked the Spice Girls. Five seemingly enthusiastic, hard-working young women given names that sounded as if they had been plucked from a range of lipsticks by their Pygmalion manager, Simon Fuller. The Spice Girls didn’t, honestly, have much talent of their own, except for Mel C with her lovely voice and her songwriting skills. And she’s the one who has aged best, looks most human, is still most likeable. The others, as time goes on, seem to have dieted and airbrushed themselves into what they think men want: fearful of turning back into the naturally pretty, unpretentious young girls they originally were before the pop industry cast its greedy eye on them.

With the Spice Girls came the “Because I’m worth it” culture. Implicit in this was the idea that all men were idiots – crass bumbling fools: an idea reinforced and exploited by ad agencies trying to sell, for example, cars to women. “Dump the boyfriend, the car’s more fun” ran the slogans. But however much one laments the damage they caused, at least the Spice Girls had their moment – their desperately longed-for appointment with destiny.

I don’t think that will happen this time round.

Ten years on, those bouncy, slightly unkempt girls are wives and mothers. In readiness for their money-spinning world tour, they have been hammered into a kind of robotic perfection, every curve calculated and every move choreographed. But every smile seems false; every gesture of togetherness suspect. Look long and hard and it seems as if at any moment the lacquer is about to crack and peel.

With their tumbling hair, spiced-up smiles and carved cheekbones, the girls who once raged about Girl Power now seem desperate for male approval. They may brandish the whips and tight leather costumes of the S&M dungeon on stage, but the act just comes across as risible. Victoria, the bad-tempered one who won’t smile, can’t smile, pouts her mouth and squeezes her tiny frame into bondage gear.

But in the end, it’s just embarrassing. The attempt at eroticism doesn’t work.

For all the lighting tricks and clever camera angles (or, indeed, perhaps because of them), it remains as sexy as secondrate soft porn. Each to their own, I suppose; except they’ve got five children between them. Sexy strip-teases, I ask you! Of the five of them, two are married (one of those for the second time and not to the father of her baby), one is a single mother, and two have long-term partners. According to the rumour mill, chickenpox has struck on the tour.

It must be dreadful in that 747. Well, what did the feminists think would happen? That these girls wouldn’t have messy relationships and have to drag their kids round the world so they could go to work? At the end of the day, a working mother’s a working mother.

In the cotton mills 150 years ago, toddlers crawled about the dusty factory floors. Now it’s on the aircraft floor, up and down the aisle. What’s the difference? Not a lot, except these working mothers have a lot more money and wouldn’t starve if they put their feet up and stayed at home for the rest of their lives.

I’m saddened for the feminist movement because Posh, Ginger, Sporty, Baby and Scary were once meant to be Girl Power role models – independent, sexy, high achievers. And now look at them. There’s a feminist country-and-western song by Deanna Carter, “Did I shave my legs for this?” in which a young wife heads for the door, tired of her couch-potato husband. Similarly, faced with what has become of the Spice Girls, I am inclined to say “Did I take off my wedding ring for this?” – which I did, back in the Seventies, out of fellow feeling for the way any woman over 30 was made to feel inferior if she didn’t have one.

All those old gestures seem pointless in retrospect. The inheritance has been squandered.

So I’m embarrassed for the feminists, clinging on to the dream of a proud, equal, serious society, where justice ruled and lasses didn’t throw away their hard-won equality in the pubs and clubs, puking up their resentments on the shoes of paramedics trying to help them out of the gutter. Those little girls who first listened to the Spice Girls ten years ago are the ones who are now running up vast credit card bills on designer shopping they can’t afford.

They are the ones who are anorexic or bulimic (just like Geri was).

They are the ones who are fuelling a rise in sexual diseases the like of which we haven’t seen for generations.

And I’m embarrassed for the nation because, thanks to Geri’s famous Union Jack dress, worn back in the heady days of Blair’s New Cool Britannia, and worn once again on stage this week, the Spice Girls remain “our” representatives. Just like them, we’re clinging to one-time glory, to the time when British Airways really was the world’s favourite airline, England could beat Croatia at football, and the Spice Girls were the biggest pop group on the planet. But I’m afraid the world will yawn and sneer at this attempt to resurrect past glories. ‘

~o0o~

How very like a feminist to blame the social decay that has resulted from feminism on a pop band!

After forty years of brainwashing women about entitlement without responsibility, legitimised by lies and exaggerated half-truths of victimhood, we can now see the resulting effects on western society described above.

Perhaps you should look a little closer to home, Fay!

‘What would you like your daughter to be when she grows up? A doctor? A Judge? Chairman of the Stock Exchange? Perhaps your ambitions are more modest and you would be quite content to see her doing something less exalted but equally worthwhile, such as midwifery or primary school teaching.

Well, you’d better forget all that because your daughter may well have other ideas. Even as you read this she may be doing online research into breast implants and diet pills and how to snag a billionaire. And, by the way, not only is she just nine and therefore far too young to be doing any of this but, while she’s doing it, she’s spending your money, too.

Welcome to the truly appalling world of Miss Bimbo. She is a virtual character in an internet game in which the aim is to create “the coolest, richest and most famous bimbo in the world”. To this end, players – and there are nearly 200,000 of them – shepherd their bimbos through various missions. These include entering beauty contests so they can earn money to buy clothes and go clubbing, to find a wealthy boyfriend.

Yes, I know the characters in Miss Bimbo are just cartoon drawings (albeit accurate ones with tattoos and thongs showing over low slung waistbands). But the messages they are conveying are all too real.

They are:

  • Wearing the right clothes is important.
  • Being very thin is really, really important.
  • So is having a rich boyfriend.

Shall we just pack up and go home right now, because, to my mind, this fad is the most depressing thing I’ve heard in months.

Is this why the Suffragettes went on hunger strike, so that their great-granddaughters could grow into vapid ninnies whose sole preoccupation in life is their own appearance?

Did the feminists of the early Seventies burn their bras knowing that self-standing silicone would eventually replace underwiring?

And here we are, daughters of the post-feminist era, still trying to get paid the same as men for doing the same work; still having to  mutter reminders in job interviews that, actually, it’s against the law to ask us if we intend to have children at some point. And for what? So the next batch of women can grow up aspiring to be skinny Wags? Is that really the legacy feminism has handed down to the girls of today: how to starve yourself into size zero jeans?

What happened to wanting to be good at something, earning respect for a skill? What happened to the desire to accomplish?

I recall last year’s Big Brother contestant Charlie Uchea brazenly admitting she was in it “for the fame”. All she had to offer by way of talent was a pert figure and a mouth like a sewer but, somehow, she thought they were all she’d need.

Another contestant, Chanelle Hayes, revealed how BB had broadened her horizons. Before the show, her sole ambition was to marry a rich footballer; now she realised she could have her own career and earn her own money. Again, she possesses no talent beyond pleasing looks and astounding petulance – but they have been enough.

This is Miss Bimbo’s philosophy made flesh: that crash diets, self absorption and inveigling your way into some overpaid oaf’s bed are the path to advancement.

Meanwhile I note with unexpected sadness that women’s studies is to be scrapped as a degree subject after this year due to dwindling interest.

I was never one of those “wimmin” and frankly the few I met were “separatist” idiots who wouldn’t let the postman come to the door because he was a man, so I don’t think anyone needs to spend three years studying history, politics or literature purely from the female perspective.

But at least women’s studies presented women as independent figures of value and stature who used their brains as well as their bodies to achieve remarkable things, often against great odds.

Coincidentally, I received a press release yesterday about the increasing number of teenage girls demanding cosmetic surgery. It offered information from experts on the non-surgical options now available for breast-firming. Excuse me but teenage breasts don’t need firming and plastic surgeons know that better than anyone so what the hell are they playing at?

The creator of Miss Bimbo is web designer Nicolas Jacquart, who is 23 and male, which shows just how little progress women have made in persuading men to view us as more than sex objects. But, then, if we allow impressionable children to play with rubbish like this, we have only ourselves to blame.’

~o0o~

A brief summary of this article;-

“I’m not a feminist, but.. 

  • Women have been oppressed historically. This is men’s fault.
  • Women are now slighty less oppressed, but are using these hard-won freedoms to behave with vacuity, fecklessness and dependence on others. This is men’s fault.
  • This trend is escalating and influencing the next generation of women. This is men’s fault.
  • Raising children is a collective social responsibility. This is your fault (!).”

From a country whose feminist government practises puppet elections , that codifies government defined  political correctness in place of publicly defined accountablility, and whose feminist mainstream media deifies worthless ‘celebrities’ daily – perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction, Ms Pukas!