IN LABOUR'S WORLD EQUALITY MEANS BANNING MEN FROM SPEAKING OR LISTENING

I had mentioned that I was to review what was going on at the party conferences and as you would expect Labour's is very revealing as they are continuing to want to be the vanguard of the anti-male political world we live in.

The Liberal Democrats had Featherstone ranting and its pro-women/anti-man groups but nothing compares to Labour. 

It was bad enough when they were in government where they introduced a Minister for Women (but no Minister for Men) and then government ministers took it in turns to bring in as much as anti-male policies as possible to poison the public sector, the state institutions and the state as a whole. They bankrolled much of the "women's movement" in the charitable sector.

Now at their conference they decided to devote a whole day to talking about women's issues and not allowing men to listen, speak or take part (only Ed MIliband was allowed). This from a party that puts equality at the centre of everything it does, yet bans people because of their gender. As one recent reader pointed out - no platforming people who may oppose them and not engaging them is a classic Marxist feminist ploy.

They also like the Liberal Democrats ran a whole pelthora of woemen-only courses etc.

On the "No Men Shall Speak or Listen" day the hypocrisy is breathtaking but unsurprising, and some agree (see media coverage below). Soon the whole of the Labour Party conference will be women-only.

Posted by Skimmington

 Media coverage: The Indepedent, Women On, The Sun.

 

Comments

[John Kimble]

I think the title of the event, "What Women Want", says it all really.

"Want" is a very childish term. A term used by greedy and selfish people. It implies rights without responsibilities and special treatment and privileges. Also it's copying the name of a film so there' a complete lack of creativity and thought too.

The perfect title.

[Dave]

Aw, bless ‘em, you’ve got to feel sorry for them, all dolled up with their best handbags, isolated from the world for 5 mins in a solitary room where they secretly talk with unreserved delusion about how unprivileged they all are. And being allowed to do get away with it like that – and paid for it! Oh well, just like the often humorous innocence of children and animals, it must make them feel all cuddly and happy and warm, so that’s ok - a little treat for them I say. And it did keep them out of everyone’s way for a bit.

[Mr. Ogynist]

Ah who gives a damn about women? I sure don't. Let these whining chauvinists have their little "no boys allowed" event; it's just another example of how petty, trivial and unimportant women really are.

Women aren't important.

[John Kimble]

"Women aren't important."

That does come across as a bit sexist TBH and although we're extremely pro freedom of speech here we're also equally pro equality.

Your point does carry weight if you mean it sense women/men aren't important and it's PEOPLE that count, I could certainly agree with that view.

[Mr. Ogynist]

I'm not here to be a troll. I believe in men's rights. But I do believe the Men's Movement has been too scared to fight properly for fear of accusations of "misogyny", the fear of which feminists have used to silence men who speak up for years. Why allow women to dictate the terms of these arguments? Forget them. To fight for men's rights you have to FIGHT for them not ask nicely.

You can't fight with one hand behind your back.

[Groan]

It put me in mind of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Surely what should count is the quality of character rather than any accident of biology. In some ways I hope Ms. Harman continues to sponsor such obvious "own goals". After all how can one argue men should be more active in childcare etc. etc. yet claim such issues are only the province of women and "honorary" women. This must mean there are issues only the province of men and "honorary men". I can't imagine the younger generations are remotely impressed by such action so rooted in the past. As commented on by many elsewhere it is insulting to women. So Yvette Cooper and Ms. Harman herself believe women can't hold their own in debates that include men. Yet both are said to harbour desires for leadership of Labour and the country. Presumably that country would have to be all female (the Isle of Woman?) and only meet female ministers from abroad otherwise men would just take over. The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't for the damage this lazy thinking and self interest does to ordinary people through public policy. I am tempted to ask Harriet to do more of these "stunts".

[Mr. Ogynist]

The reason, Groan, is because these Labour women are sexist feminists. They as you point out demand men are more involved in things such as childcare, yet then organise a special debate and talk about these same "women's issues".

I note the subjects under discussion included health and the NHS (last time I looked men got sick too), education (boys need education too) and even Domestic Violence... Not one of these could be called "Women's Issues" yet this is precisely what has happened.

All you men out there reading this - do NOT vote for Labour for as long as Ms. Harman is in a position of influence. At the moment Labour is a party that cares only about women. Don't waste your votes while you still have them.

[John Kimble]

If Labour were so into excluding people from debate surely the best group to bar would be convicted criminals?

Of course that means Harman wouldn't be allowed to take part. Such a shame.

[Bob]

Can you imagine the BNP holding a 'Whites only' party meeting. The media would have a field day.

They barred ethnic minorities from being members and were forced by the courts to admit them. The whole process covered daily by the national media. Yet, Labour get away with it and nothing on the main TV news channels.

This is of course because they discriminate against men, which is now thanks to the misandrous femi-centric media, socially acceptable.