Herbert Purdy posted a riposte to Isabel Rogers both here and on her website, which she’s cleared for publication. We look forward to her response, if any. Herbert Purdy wrote:
“As pedantry seems to be alive and well here and being exercised with just an ever so slight touch of superiority, might I respectfully point out that ‘more politicians who use Wiki to research their manifestoes’ are only going to find that, yes, those sweet little pinkies on the ends of their feet are real. Just a petty point, I know, but I couldn’t resist it, especially when you make so many petty points, whilst ignoring the herd of elephants in your own room.
I know its probably difficult for you to see them, of course, because you are so righteously and sanctimoniously full of your own rights, but feminism’s activities in the name of equality are creating some very serious social inequalities that men are beginning to get just a tad tetchy about. Actually, more than a tad – across the developed world, a backlash is building against your one-sided, so-called equality, and when that breaks, there’s going to be hell to pay.
If I might be so bold as to offer some advice? If I were you, I would be thinking very seriously about coming down off your self-created pedestal, and engaging with the ideas of honest men who are expressing honest opinions, cogently argued, instead of ridiculing them and engaging in that old canard of the ad hominem attack. Frankly, it demeans you more than it demeans the man. If I were you, I would be losing the levity and waking up to the reality that the politicisation of gender has been one of the greatest tragedies to befall women, let alone men – and children – in our society.
And, you are a fool if you think that feminism is getting ‘equal dibs at stuff’. Maybe it is you who should take the red pill. Feminism is cultural Marxism driven by the likes of Germaine Greer, Kate Millett and a host of others in the 1970s and right up to the present, including Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt, and a their clones in parliament today who are intent on tearing our society to ribbons, casting women as a political classes and setting them against men to the good of neither. These radical feminists are feeding naive women like you the sugary pill of ‘liberation’ and quasi-equality in the name of alleged historical oppression by men, which is one of the most flagrant examples of the basic logical fallacy of the argumentum ad logicam there is. And whilst you are buying it lock, stock and barrel, your sugary feminism is subjugating you and destroying your families, your freedoms and your respect for men.
You write with humour, Isabel, but the last laugh may not be yours, or feminism’s m’dear. I shall be interested to see if you have the confidence to pass this comment for public viewing.
(Oh, and just a note for you too: ‘Women have been voting for nearly a hundred years’, which is about the same time as the overwhelming majority of men have been too. Do some research and work it out.)”