Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Harriet through the looking glass

I am not quite sure what most irritates me about Harridan Harperson.

Her anti-Liberal special pleading perhaps?

That no one should achieve success by their own efforts, but should also match some Harman defined template for what is acceptable- this I find both patronising and insulting.
A feminist that does not believe simply in the equality of women, but rather that women should be given extra "help" in order to make up for some Harman-defined long term "injustice against women". Several highly successful women friends of mine would regard this as humiliation and not a triumph.

Her tone is such that when she- as usual- makes highly controversial statements, one can tell that to disagree with her is not just to hold a contending point of view, it is to be morally inferior. Only her vision is ethical and right, all others are so incorrect as to warrant persecution.

It is largely this arrogance that has got the Labour party into its current mess, so it is with rather mixed feelings that I greet the supposed "plot" that she and David Milliband are said to be concocting against the Prime Minister. If true, it only confirms her arrogance (and one might argue, her political naivety). However, one can hope that she may be successful and thus finally destroy the political zombie of the post-Socialist Labour party.

Since 1997, Labour have had two leaders, The Liberal Democrats four leaders and the Conservatives five. While one can certainly argue that Brown has so far not been a successful leader, to change now would be an admission of panic. In the looking-glass world of Harriet, perhaps such a failure would be counted as a success?

So in that spirit I wish this mistaken and occasionally deluded politician all the success in the world.

3 comments:

Meral Hussein Ece said...

A feminist that does not believe simply in the equality of women, but rather that women should be given extra "help" in order to make up for some Harman-defined long term "injustice against women".
Disagree strongly with this statement - I believe in ensuring we have a level playing field. I'm a committed feminist, not because I believe women should be given 'special treatment or help', but because of unequal pay, rights, etc. I support the changes to legislation that will stop men pleading 'nagging and snapping' as an excuse to murder their wives and walk away with 18 months for manslaughter, while a woman after years of abuse who 'snaps' gets life for murder.
Also don't like this 'Harperson' tag - very demeaning...

Newmania said...

Meral why is it do you think that no-one ever fantasises about having sex with a Liberal ?
You are talking balls as usual .Harman is quiet clearly heading for a quota system by introducing the right to discriminate against men for jobs . In fact pay differences are to do with life choices no discrimination as most women agree . In court women can now get away with murdering a man in his sleep by claiming “ fear of serious violence” , but a man cannot claim any diminished responsibility from jealous rage, or sudden provocation . The divorce courts continue to transfer to women the entirety of whatever they couple have built and whatever a weeping Batman says about it . The prize for divorce is the children ,a home and an income the woman no longer has to work for . This inserts a damaging power imbalance to the private sphere.
Meanwhile women want it all. They remain highly resistant to marrying financially beneath themselves, and 75% of the dears who co-habit still want to get married . The female sole bread winner household appears to be simply unwanted by anyone ,being no more common now than 30 years ago. This of course puts great pressure on men to be a 1930s style provider when women want noughties style special treatment, in their efforts to out compete men in the workplace . True, women occupy many low paid part time jobs, but they are also pouring into the professions , outperforming men academically, and soon , no doubt , financially .
Yvonne Roberts defended quotas for women speculating on how Joe Bloggs and his family might feel about his unemployment due to women preference . She sees the future as men becoming more like women ,and being prepared to accept a more female work/nurturing role . Well it is far from clear that women want us to do that but her final sentence is chilling.
“ Government has to restore the meaning of the word “ choice “ for fathers and mother. For some men that may mean a period of adjustment , which might hurt- but it will hurt less if they can see the reason for it “
I appear to have scribbled underneath this “ Cow !!“. I do not intend to become unisex although I doubt it will trouble the Liberal Party much.

Cicero ... Are now going to pretend to be protesting against the bourgeois Politically correct settlement that the Liberals party are the chief architects of ? Harperson ?


You stick to being sonorous and worthy , we`ll do the gags .

Tony said...

Good Job! :)