Herbert Purdy’s comments on Richard Scudamore’s former PA

Earlier today we posted a piece about how the disloyal temporary PA of Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, sent some of his obviously private emails to the media… and is now seeking £150,000 compensation from the Premier League. As we often say, you couldn’t make this s*** up. The ever-insightful Herbert Purdy has just posted some comments on the piece (below), which once again are worthy of a blog piece. The man really should write a book. I might suggest the idea to him. Maybe LPS publishing could publish it. In the meantime, enjoy:

“Women like this are so steeped in what they believe is their moral obligation to root out every instance of the social ‘offence’ of sexism, something they see everywhere and in everything, and which only feminism has declared is offensive. They truly believe they are justified in this sort of behaviour, it is astonishing really.

Ms Abraham has not only lost all vestige of any claim she might have had to integrity in her work, she will undoubtedly find that her ideologically driven actions will prevent her finding employment in the future. How can she not see that trust is so easily lost, and her beliefs are no excuse for such unspeakable irresponsibility?

These women really believe they are right to put their ideology before their contractual and ethical duty. That is what feminism is doing to women, it is robbing them of their human agency and their moral fibre. What world do we now live in that women can be like this?

Ms Abraham is an adult, deemed to have agency, and she exercised that agency in what she did, so she must be accountable. Yet she seems to believe she is justified sufficiently in what she did to seek punitive damages. In other words, she wants to punish those whom she has first punished, betrayed, and damaged. She has shown no moral scruple, yet she believes she is entitled to compensation, presumably in the belief that she acted in a just cause. No she did not. Feminism’s crusade against alleged sexism is not a just cause.

Feminism has induced women to believe that they have rights to equality, and, in that endeavour, no responsibility to exercise even the most basic of human responsibilities. This woman has destroyed her own personal integrity, which is precious beyond jewels, as she will no doubt now realise.

Her chances of ever being considered worthy of getting any job in which trust, discretion and integrity are implicit have been blown to pieces – by her. She has tarred herself with the brush of being seen as a feminist subversive who will ‘out’ any boss who does not toe the line of her ideology. Now who would employ a woman like that? How duped these women are!

I think Mike Buchanan’s point is well made. It is undoubtedly getting to the stage where to be a feminist woman in a position of trust in an organisation is to be seen as a potential subversive, and, therefore, better to select a man and be safe.”

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • It reminds me of a quote from Orwell’s 1984:

    Winston …… disliked nearly all woman, and especially the young and pretty ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

    The parallel’s between feminism and Ingsoc are sometimes uncanny.

    • Thanks Paul. It’s impossible tor read the book without being reminded of feminist totalitarianism page after page – thought crime etc.

  • How insightful! Yes, of course, I remember now.

    I had already seen some of the more obvious parallels, such as the Newspeak and thought crime of Nineteen Eighty-Four being comparable to the rise of feminist-inspired political correctness. And the pigs’ progressive takeover of privilege in Animal Farm, where ‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others’, as analogous to the growing pressure for privilege and positive discrimination by an articulate and politically powerful female elite intent on securing boardroom gender quotas, all-women prospective parliamentary candidate shortlists etc. – but this is a gem. Thank you for pointing it out Paul.

    And, remember, the animals were only able to take over the farm when the farmer was drunk and distracted. Just like society today is ‘drunk’ and distracted by feminism’s lies about ‘equality’ as its aim when when it is working out its real agenda of female supremacy and privilege.

    Orwell was widely credited at the time with taking a poke at Stalin’s Russia, which he was, but the more one thinks about it, the more one realises how prophetic he was about our present times.

    Feminism is Marxism of course. Most people know that. The ‘Woman Question’ was a hotly debated topic in socialism as far back as the late nineteenth century, and, of course, the 1848 Communist Manifesto, talks openly about communism’s aim to create a ‘legalised community of women’. That is why feminists have such a stronghold in the Labour Party.

    It’s astonishing when you think about it. Frightening, really.

    • The other striking parallel is how in 1984 The Inner Party create a climate of fear and hatred to control and manipulate the Outer Party and the proletariat, whether it be fear and hatred of external powers such as Eurasia or ‘the enemy within’.

      In a similar fashion feminists instil fear and hatred of men in women, by inflating rape statistics, exaggerating domestic violence statistics and ignoring male victims and concocting myths such as the glass ceiling and gender wage gap.

      It’s the politics of fear.

      One of the things that I have noticed recently, is how heavily indoctrinated young women have become as feminists spread their ideology in our schools.

  • I doubt very much that any principles are actually involved, though the PA may be persuading others of this. I think the truth is more to be found in the post you have from “Clarissa’s Blog”. Narcissistic self-absorption is a heady brew, at least exhausting to managers and colleagues, and at most destructive and corrosive. The principles merely act as a cover for mendacity.

    • Of course 1984 precisely charts the manipulation of the less attractive aspects of human nature in service of “Big Brother” . Breaking down the ties of family and community through widespread “informing” is, as Orwell so acutely observed, a core feature of a totalitarian state run with an “ism”.

  • In 1970, Germaine Greer said, ‘Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true, willy nilly, so let’s get on with it.’ (The Female Eunuch ‘Revolution’ 1970)


    (What a crackingly good thread this is becoming, yeah?)

    • The proposed changes to the Child Neglect laws announced in this month’s Queen’s Speech will make emotional cruelty a criminal offence for the first time.

      The issue (or should that be intent) is that the definition of emotional cruelty is so subjective and the proposal to allow testimony from children so open to manipulation that it could easily be used to further undermine the family and particularly the position and authority of fathers.

      No surprises that heavily feminist influenced charities like Women’s Aid and the NSPCC are in full support.

      Fathers can soon looked forward to being denounced in court by their own children for not buying them the latest X-Box.

      Welcome to Airstrip 1.