Kathy Gyngell: Labour’s real problem is not Ed. Sanctimonious feminists have alienated its working class vote

An excellent piece, even by Kathy Gyngell’s standards. I feel it vindicates our decision to target Labour as well as Conservative seats at the general election, and in particular our decision to challenge Gloria de Piero, Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities. She almost lost a historically safe Labour seat in 2010, when she first contested it, with a margin of just 192 votes. We suggest she starts thinking about possible career options after May 7.

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.
  • Interesting. Reminds me of another article I saw today. Though the States binary system creates a different dynamic from a parliamentary multi-party system, I do wonder if any similarities will play out between Labour and UKIP:

  • Kathy is spot on. The Labour party exists in name only. It is the defacto Feminist party in all but official name. All policies must be gender feminist in nature or neutral in affect to the gender feminist agenda. In every minister’s job Harriet Harman has only ever had created policies to spend money on women. Many times using quota based arguments to discriminate against men. In fact she thinks fathers are an unnecessary nuisance. As per Lucy Powel and her 10% GDP increase she is failing to take note of the rise in discriminated against under educated men who will be less employed and replaced by women who tend to work less overtime and less full time hours, even with better qualifications. Men will therefore not be getting married, not producing children and generally withdrawing for an anti-male society which seeks to criminalise masculinity i.e. a collapse in GDP, and a collapse in women being able to be mothers in the first place. Yvette Cooper’s feminist brainwashed school boys will not be boys at all. Do not vote for these people. As a previous Labour voter there is no humanity left in the party for working men. Economic, educational and social policies have and would be rolled out that will only make men’s lives (and women who choose to love them) nearly unbearable even in a “previously” wealthy western country. Vote for the (feminist)Labour party from now on and welcome to the gender feminist nirvana of a social holocaust. This is the definition of equality their ideology and actions appears to work to – lesbian ideologues (leaders) first, “political lesbians” second, working women third, single mothers fourth, married house wives fifth, children sixth, sperm donations seventh, feminist men eighth, gay men ninth, straight men last, least or not at all equal. A MHRA definition of equality that matches their actions and aims – compassion, fairness, justice, respect and equal opportunity for all, in return for equal responsibility for all. Which do you want to support?

  • As a past labour voter I too can feel a wind of change as the anti “working class” ideology of the party’s professional politicians seeps out from the committee rooms and conclaves within which it had worked so hard. I think a seminal moment was the “bigot” remark by Brown about a woman supporter concerned with migration from the EU. Of course increasing the supply of willing skilled labour depresses wages, even if this is good for the general economy it is an obvious concern for working people now with more competition. As with so many policies trumpeted by the feminist cadres the true losers are the working people that aspire to a simple family life. And poll after poll shows it is in fact labour’s working men and women who are most likely to aspire to a “traditional” family. I think that what is lacking is simple direct appeals to this stawart population. Help to join up the dots and so see more clearly how the labour party’s casual misandry torpedoes the aspirations of young men to learn , acquire useful skills. Earn a good living to support a family , be rewarded on the basis of workF not gender or other equality group , be able to find a partner to get a home with.

  • One clarification, I meant only gender feminist lesbian ideologues. Personally I know some very nice people who happen to be lesbians who are the opposite of these people.