We didn’t have to wait long for Theresa May, our new prime minister, to play the race and gender cards. Shortly after arriving in Downing Street to take on the role of prime minister, after her visit to Buckingham Palace, she gave a short speech. I’ve highlighted two sentences in yellow:
If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.
We rarely touch on race issues, but the following would certainly have been true, though Ms May declined to state it:
If you’re male, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re female.
Then the gender card – the gender pay gap, one of the most frequently discredited feminist narratives. The reasons women on average earn less than men are well understood, and have nothing to do with anti-female discrimination:
If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man.
We were expecting Ms May – a woman who infamously posed for photographs whilst wearing the Fawcett Society’s ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ T-shirt – to show her true colours very quickly, and she has.
Breach the “gentleman’s code of conduct?” Oh please, what “gentleman’s code of conduct”? Any gentlemen thinking that way doesn’t deserve to be called a gentlement, strap him to a horse and ride him back to the 13th century where he belongs, with a good swift kick in his silly arse on the way, the dolt. If anything, the appropriate enlightened, modern day reaction should be such that the more you see women in positions of power, the less you should have this silly fictional “gentlemen’s code of conduct” you speak of. The one’s increase should be correlated with the other one’s decrease, at least for anyone who knows who to think and breathe in the 21st century. So attack the anachronistic, lingering, laggardly white knights whenever you can at every and any oppourtunity. For they should be as dead as the notion that a woman shouldn’t be a prime minister; like I said, these things should be congruent.
slightly off topic but its obvious that Theresa May is intentionally playing for time over the EU.She has no real intention of taking us out .Anymore than she will do anything to reduce net immigration which is adding an extra million people every three years to our overcrowded island.
Hmmm an interesting angle that one, i had never considered. probably a metric ton of cash unaccounted for there!
The problem is that women are fundamentally anti-competition minded (with the sole exception of competing with other women to attract a mate) and therefore not fit to govern in a capitalist system. And we, men, do not want to openly state it, let alone act on it, lest we breach the gentleman’s code of conduct. So instead we sit and watch how the ship is slowly being run aground by uncompetitive, socialist equality minded women. That is really dumb.
Please don’t bracket Her Majesty in with the other two!
“But David’s true legacy is not about the economy, but about social justice.” Indeed so. We still have a majority Conservative Parliament, but a Socialist state, where social justice rides roughshod over lawful justice. Note how she states the poor die sooner, but not that poor men die much sooner than poor women. Expect everything to get much, much worse.
Now we have a female head of state,
a female prime minister and a female Home Secretary.
This won’t stop the femarxists playing the debunked stuck in a groove
‘equality’ record of course.
Where on earth are the blessed Patriarchy when you need them!
Margaret Thatcher famously said she owed nothing to women’s lib. I hope Theresa May remembers that given the way she modelled herself on the Lady on the doorstep of No 10.
The so called gender pay gap is due to women’s lifestyle choices – hours not worked and responsibility not taken. As we all agree.
One thing May might do that Cameron could not, handicapped with public school good manners, is slap Nicola Sturgeon down, hard. The way women think and relate to one another means she will not tolerate a female rival on her territory. Any woman she has in her Cabinet will not be perceived by her as a rival while Sturgeon is; and neutralising Sturgeon is in the best interests of the country as a whole. Irrelevant perhaps, but maybe worth saying.
I’ve heard she’s going for gender parity in her cabinet, like Sturgeon & Trudeau have. A shill move to appear progressive but is actually regressive since it ignores qualifications & concentrates on sexist hiring. Surely this is flat out sexual discrimination?
Calculations of that statistic only track legal activities. Have you ever heard of a feminist arguing to legalize prostitution to reduce that difference?
She failed to complete the sentence: If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man, so pull your fingers out you lazy bitches.
There! Fixed it!
Actually this is refreshingly honest compared to feminist/BBC talk.
They like to pretend that women are PAID less, i.e. they do just as much work but somehow end up with less pay for the same output and it’s all down to sexism, unfairness and men getting something they’re not entitled to.
Using the term “EARN” is far more accurate and not seen so often by radfems, it doesn’t really imply discrimination and for one thing it’s actually true too. There’s an earnings gap becasue women don’t take on difficult jobs, dont’ decide themselves to their careers and don’t put in the same hours. The men deserve their extra money because they EARN it.
Of course the entire thing is a complete non issue and not something any decent politician should be wasting a single second thinking about (let alone a prime Minister) but at least she isn’t telling lies.
Strictly it’s true – women do EARN less than men. It’s just that people conflate that with being unfairly paid less for the same work – rather than simply working less. And on the positive side she does also write, “If you’re a white, working-class boy, you are less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university”. Am I grasping at straws?