Our thanks to Peter for pointing us to this in the Telegraph. An extract will give you a sense of the sheer mind-numbing stupidity of Cathy Newman’s article:
Take equal pay, for example – one of WE’s most prominent policies. David Cameron tried to recall his modernising roots and win his daughters’ approval, by calling out pay discrimination, telling conference delegates earlier this month: “You can’t have true opportunity without real equality.”
Yet he’s been in power for five years, and still, as WE points out, women earn only 52 per cent of what men do every year. This isn’t just because of the gender pay gap, but because they end up sacrificing their career to bring up children.
In plain English, Ms Newman is informing us that women earn a lot less than men because… er… they engage in a lot less paid employment than men.
It’s not fair! Wah! Wah!! Wah!!!
It gets worse:
Then comes ‘everyday sexism’ – the things that impact the lives of women and girls at a cultural level.
Retailers and schools have been allowed to get away with forcing our children into gender stereotypes for too long.
The ‘pinkification’ of girls’ play and education matters, because if girls at playschool wear princess dresses, while boys get to build Lego, it’s a slippery slope from that to a dearth of female engineers, as young women pursue “softer” subjects.
Might it be that girls at playschool want to wear princess dresses, and will do so unless prevented by feminist mothers, who chew on slices of lemon each morning, to establish their characteristic expressions for the day?
And might young women prefer “softer” subjects… now this will sound crazy, but let me put it out there… because they’re softer? This would be entirely consistent with Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000), which showed that while four out of seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British woman is.
In the article there’s a poll for readers, titled, ‘Do the Women’s Equality Party policies speak to you?’ Odd wording there – ‘speak’? – but the options for readers to select from are:
Yes, they’re spot on.
No, they don’t go far enough.
I’m not sure, they’re lacking detail.
Obvious alternative options are excluded, such as:
No, they speak to me of what happens when you let feminists with the IQs of fruit flies create policy documents.
Cathy Newman has nominated herself for a Whiny Feminist of the Month award.
