If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Justice for Men & Boys 
“Reeves faces ethics inquiry…”
She won’t understand. No woman will understand. “But, but…it benefits women and children! How can it be wrong..?”
It is one of the gravest errors of the modern age to believe that men and women operate to the same code of morals and ethics. Male ethics are deontic, involving a sense of duty, and arose through competition with other males.
Female ethics are teleological, aiming for outcomes of utilitarian benefit to females. Usually achieved by sneaky subversion of deontic values.
https://www.denisecummins.com/uploads/1/1/8/2/11828927/cummins_2019_encyc_ev_psy_sci.pdf
To see this in its fullest blossoming, there’s the article by Heather Draper in Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(8), 475-480 (2007). It womansplains why paternity fraud doesn’t hurt men in the least, and that they should be grateful. I kid you not.
These creatures live their life in some alternate universe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In ‘supporting’ her, Starmer is subtly preparing to hang her out to dry.
Saw this so many times in the private sector. Under the guise of being ‘progressive’, weak managers would hire women – the more incompetent, the better. These newly promoted ‘boss babes’ failed to realise that, since they lacked ideas of their own, they were mere puppets of the puppet master.
Things have recently been going badly for 2TK, facing a backbench rebellion led by women who want to splash even more taxpayer cash on the single parent and ‘blended’ families which are destroying social cohesion. He has put Rachel in the frame for coming up with policies which will save his own skin. She flew enough kites in the past three weeks to see which revenue-generating measures would be tolerated by the markets and the public. But, it was imperative that the ‘lifting children out of poverty’ brigade be appeased.
Finally, she made her ‘decisions’ on Budget Day, with about as much choice in the matter as Sooty. The hand of Starmer was waving her arms. Subsequently, he has been waiting to see if everyone has been fooled by his ‘passion’ for ending poverty. A passion which seemed more (sensibly) non-existent when he suspended 7 backbenchers who attempted to force his hand on this matter, last year, at the wrong time – when his position remained relatively assured.
Initial reactions are that the smoke and mirrors haven’t worked, and there are serious questions to answer. Starmer, while professing support for his beleagured Chancellor, will ultimately attempt to distance himself from the furore. After all, Rachel is the Chancellor. With great power comes great responsibility.
Whatever he does, his goose is already cooked. This man made a career out of throwing men under the bus. He’ll find, with Dodds, Haigh, Grey, Powell, Rayner, and now, possibly, Reeves (whom he has previously reduced to tears by damning with faint praise) that women neither forgive nor forget.
LikeLiked by 1 person