16 March 2006
If only men had voted at the last election, Labour would have a majority of just 25 seats. Tony Blair would probably have gone by now, and none of his reforming legislation would have been passed.
Inadvertantly this Times columnist, Mary Ann Sieghart, has justified removing women’s right to vote. Although I’m not at all partisan and regard the Tories and Liberal Democrats as utter tossers, Labour are the worst of them all, a pack of high-taxing, high-spending Socialist fucknuts. If it wasn’t for women voting we’d cut their majority and eventually dispose of them or force them to actually reward the productive rather than the unproductive.
Women also follow the herd and vote on short-term issues. All a politician has to do is mouth a few bullshit promises and smile a lot and women will vote in hoards for them, unlike us pesky men who, generally, are not swayed by stupid sound bites and actually consider the long-term implications of what politicians vow to do.
Sadly, as is pointed out in this article, David ‘Ultra Mangina’ Cameron has decided to get in power by pandering to women.
This article contains many other accidental admissions that contradict her and her feminist sister’s points, such as when she describes some meeting at a Conservative Party Conference about women:
One after another, members of the audience stood up and declared that, while they always used to hate the idea of positive discrimination, they had now changed their minds. Everything else had been tried, and nothing less would work.
So in other words, desite trying ‘everything else’ (such as trying to rise through the ranks on merit), women have decided the only way they can get into positions of power in the world of politics is to discriminate against men, and the Conservative Party are sadly packed full of manginas eager to follow this idea.
How thick is this woman? Seriously, as she does in every column, she is trying to make out how wonderful and independent women are, and how they should have a place in political power, yet she’s brazenly admitting that most women (Thatcher being one obvious exception) are so useless they need men to be held back so that they can keep up.
What we all agreed was that change would not happen unless and until men in the party put their weight behind it.
Again, what happened to the striding doctrine of ‘independent women’? Not only do women need to discriminate against men in order to succeed they need men to help them hold men back!
Can women do fucking anything on their own? According to her, no.
A year ago, long before he (David ‘Ultra Mangina’ Cameron) entertained hopes of being in his current job, he was invited by a colleague to a small lunch of modernising Tories to discuss party tactics. All six invitees were men. Cameron instantly e-mailed back to ask why no women had been asked. I doubt the others had even noticed.
No, the others had probably not noticed because they were more concerned with the task at hand rather than obsessing over the sex of those present.
Man after man (for they nearly all were) stood up to denounce me and to insist that women cared about exactly the same issues as men: tax, crime, immigration, whatever. It would be patronising, they said, to imagine anything else. I tried to explain that it would be foolish not to, if the Tories wanted to win again,
So she’s admitting that women don’t give a shit about tax, crime and immigration then? What are they doing thinking they have any place in politics if they’re so apathetic about such issues? Note the way she adds ‘whatever’ after mentioning tax, crime and immigration, like some teenage nihilist. “Those things? Tax? Crime? Whatever! Get with it you dumb men, who cares about shit like that!”
We all know the reason women don’t give a shit about tax; they only pay 20% of all tax contributions. For women, voting is just indulging in their favourite hobby; spending men’s money. And boy do they want to spend it, as Sieghart happily admits:
Women, I argued, were more interested in public services.
We know, that’s why taxes are soaring upwards every year, to cough up for all the fucking Nanny Government shit women want lest they ever have to stand on their own two feet. Men prefer to pay for what they individually use and consume; women like everyone to pay for what they individually use and consume.
They were having problems balancing work and family and wanted the Government to help them.
Balancing work and family is fucking easy; you do a part-time job and spend the rest of your time at home with the family. Dead easy. However, that does mean having a part-time salary. Also, the prestigious jobs women would like to have (before they land a
sucker husband) such as journalism, doctors and solicitors do not generally have part-time positions. So in other words women don’t really want a “work and family” balance, they want part-time jobs with full-time pay. They certainly don’t want men to have the same though; no, we’re just here to pay for it all.
Again, note the key phrase: “…wanted the Government to help them.” Yet they’ll still insist they’re so independent!
Cameron gets this. He is saying the right things. We wait to see whether he does the right things. But he is already turning his party into one which women like me can imagine voting for. That is a great start.
With that endorsement from a feminist, who can possibly doubt that Cameron is a complete and utter fucking tosser.
Note how this and other columns from feminists and woman-firsters all seem to labour under the impression that workplaces, science laboratories, political parties and other institutions will be so much better with women involved, without any evidence to back this up and common sense and experience showing the contrary.
I don’t really give a shit who wins the next election, though, because I’ll hopefully have emigrated by then. Giving women the vote and pandering constantly to them and their feminist leaders – which has only massively increased taxes and anti-male legislation, not to mention the fact that politicians only give a shit about women – has ruined this country.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:50 PM