CALL FOR WOMEN TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN IN THE WORKPLACE

After spending most of the day yesterday tiresomely on the train and contributing to the gender pay gap by working hard, someone left their copy of the Guardian behind. Flicking through it I couldn't find any misandry anywhere until I stumbled across this gem of feminist fundamentalist double-think from Weedie Sisson (of People First) and Ann Halpern (of Women Lawyers and there seems to be lots of similar types of groups).

From a bigger picture perspective there is the clear feminist and politically correct call for group and victim status. Rather than treat people as individuals, the article's theme is that it is important to lump people into their groups and only converse with them or treat them on that basis. The emphasis in the article throughout is that women are victims of a conspiracy of discrimination without offering evidence. If a women does not succeed it is not about lifestyle choice or ability it has to be about discrimination. Any man that is successful is so solely down to discrimination against women not because he happened to be the better candidate.

Looking more deeply though, what the article is basically doing is to call for women to discriminate in favour of other women.

They are saying that successful women are letting down other women if they do not promote them, irrelevant of whether they are the best for the job. To most successful women this is rightly an anathema because they will have got their posts on merit not tokenism and want to judge others by talent not gender. The two authors are not interested in that and are having a moan at women who do not want to play the gender card.

This plays to the second point.  It ignores the fact that if a women (or a man) playing the gender card they are by logic discriminating against the other gender. In this case men. They want successful women to discriminate against men by favouring women without considering talent and ability.

The double-think is at its most laughable and shows the convulsions of logic that feminist fundamentalists have to go through to justify their reasoning. There is a sentence that says:   

We agree that quotas, women-only shortlists and any other positive action (not to be confused with positive discrimination) will work in helping to counteract past discrimination and break unhelpful stereotyping. What are government and the business community afraid of?

Where to start?

Well firstly quotas and women-only shortlists are positive discrimination. And as we know positive discrimination is negative discrimination for someone else - men. To stop someone because of their gender from being able to apply for something (women-only shortlists) or to only allow a certain number to apply (quotas) is pure gender discrimination. How can it be anything different? One is a lawyer, she will know that surely?

Plus positive action as we all know is politically correct spin for positive discrimination. In the legal profession there are more women becoming lawyers than men (and this has been the case for years) so why is there the need for positive action of women? Positive action means special treatment for someone because of their gender which therefore discriminates against other people because of their gender.

Plus of course, we come back to the point about past discrimination. Whatever the arguments of the past are, what these two are saying is that the men of today should be made to pay and should be discriminated against because of the alleged actions of the men of yesterday. This is not equality it is about some form of gender revenge against the men of today.

I always say it but of course any discrimination against men means discriminating against their mother, wife/girlfriends, sister or daughter but that is the call here. If any of these two have sons who want to be successful in business or law, they will be supporting discrimination against them.

An 'amazing' article.

Posted by Skimmington  

  

Comments

[John Kimble]

As pointed out in the comments perhaps the most amazing part of the article is that it's a response to a slightly less misandric piece by Suzanne Moore.

It really sums up the Guardian where the only criticism of someone proposing sexism against men is to tell them the simply aren't sexist enough and and the real answer is for all women to be more extreme in their contempt and unfair treatment of males.

[Bob]

I had to laugh at this in the Guardian article ;

"It seems that the laudable feminine oversensitivity to fairness and integrity is simply preventing women from accelerating change."

.....yes of course, lets sacrifice 'fairness and integrity' (as if they ever had any) because now that we have to break cover from that banner in order to perpetuate our misandry, we'll just have to think of another justification, by implication without fairness and integrity, to 'accelerate change'.

Indeed, this Guardian article is a response to another feminist article....so what does that actually mean???...some sort of exchange of open letters in the national press between feminist journalists?

A self-perpetuating propaganda machine; taking other feminists' articles as news and subsequently writing your own articles about them. Writing feminist articles about feminist articles !!

"Perpetual motions" spread nationwide.