Especially For Young Women



More Women Wanted in Parliament?

The UK parliament must have more women than currently as members, it is argued, to ensure that the relative gender proportions reflect more accurately the population that it, allegedly, serves.

And so a certain proportion of seats must be handed over to women, no matter who the public would prefer to vote for.

half the politicians should also have below average intelligence! 

But if the members of parliament should reflect more accurately the population that they supposedly serve, then, surely, and for example, half the politicians should also have below average intelligence! 

And about 10% should barely be able to read. 

Some 20% should have criminal convictions and another 5% should have significant personality disorders. 

10% should smoke pot and at least 20% of them should be very depressed.

Half of them should be above a certain age, and half of them should be below it.

Most of them should not be qualified in a professional capacity, and even fewer should have good degrees.

Indeed, only some 5% should be drawn from the legal profession.

half of them should earn below the average income

And, of course, half of them should earn below the average income, and half of them should also possess below the average amount of wealth.

There are many ways, indeed, whereby parliament could be made much more 'representative' of the people!

But why do feminists keep demanding that more women are needed here, there and everywhere when, at the same time, they keep insisting that men and women are 'equal' - and that, therefore, gender is not important when choosing people for jobs?

How does one explain this paradox?

Well, of course, the truth is that there is no paradox; because feminists have only one real aim - the stirring up of hatred towards men and the privileging of women - especially certain kinds of women.

And this is why they will say that men and women are 'equal' and yet, at the same time, they will say that the difference between them is so significant that women must be privileged when applying for certain jobs.


20 years ago I probably would not have been particularly averse to having women-only shortlists for parliamentary candidates, but I have now changed my opinion - for the simple reason that women 'with power' seem, by and large, to be concerned only for themselves and for the bankrupt feminist cause.

women members of parliament will make no attempt to represent men's interests

They tend to be selfish, deceitful and committed to discriminating against men wherever they can (e.g. see my piece entitled Good Luck Ms Harman).  And I believe that women members of parliament will make no attempt to represent men's interests. On the contrary, they will likely do their very best to disadvantage them.

One reason for this is that, fundamentally, women who reach high positions are not normal women. They are a certain breed of women - and this particular breed has consistently shown itself to be extremely hostile towards men and, hence, highly injurious to the well-being of society. Furthermore, they do not even represent 'women'. They represent only those women who are as abnormal as they are.


Here is one WOMAN whose job it was to select parliamentary candidates for the Conservative party in her constituency at the last election.

" I know one selection committee not so long ago. We had women and men on it. And, in all honesty, the good calibre people were men, not women." (quoted on Newsnight )

And here is another WOMAN from another selection committee..

We just had a selection committee recently and we simply didn't have any women [come forward for selection].

What feminists cannot understand is that most women are just not like them. They do not want to get into politics nor work in parliament. Statistically speaking, men and (normal) women simply have different priorities and different values. As a group, women are simply not motivated to seek power, money and status to the same extent as men.

Normal women simply prefer to do other things!

About four weeks ago I tootled along to Speaker's Corner at Hyde Park where two brave men from the UKMM were giving the crowds an earful against feminism. There were some twelve other speakers attracting audiences that day, talking on subjects ranging from Anarchy and Mohammed to Jesus and Transport.

All the speakers on their soapboxes were men.

All the speakers on their soapboxes were men. Not one woman was to be seen speaking anywhere. Yes, there were women in the audiences, but even there they constituted but a quarter of the total.

However, in the way that, statistically speaking, women would really prefer not to work on building sites as much as men, so it is that they would statistically prefer not to go down mines, or into sewers, or into parliament.

Women prefer to go for the look-at-me worlds of the media, fashion, publishing, or they would prefer to have babies and have their men go out to work for them. These are just SOME of the statistical choices made by women. Men do not force them to do these things.

Here is Melanie Phillips in The Sunday Times talking about the recent embarrassing occasion when Tony Blair was given a slow, rejecting handclap by women from the Women's Institute while he was delivering his speech.

"The reason [for the WI's hostile reaction] was that the government had tapped into an ideology rather than into reality. It had bought an idea of women that was as insulting as it was false. It viewed them principally as victims of discrimination. It completely failed to grasp that most women who don't work or become members of parliament or professors of nuclear physics are not the victims of prejudice but have freely CHOSEN not to go down such a path."

In a BBC Newsnight discussion on this topic, the misandric presenter Kirsty Wark did her best to inflame male-hatred in her viewers by  blaming men for the fact that few women managed to secure parliamentary positions. She was interviewing Tory MP Angela Rumbold ...

Angela Rumbold: "I think that they should simply look for the best person. ... Women have got to want to go into Parliament. I spent 15 years in the House of Commons and I enjoyed most of it. But there are two things that women have to do. Firstly, they have to WANT to go into politics, and I don't think enough women actually WANT to do this. Little girls do not WANT to be Prime Minister when they grow up. And secondly ..."

But I could not hear the rest of her sentence, because Mz Wark interrupted her with .. "How do you know? How do you know? How do you know that little girls do not want to grow up to be Prime Minister?"

Mz Kirsty Wark and her vindictive feminist cronies simply cannot accept that little girls and little boys are different

Mz Kirsty Wark and her vindictive feminist cronies simply cannot accept that little girls and little boys are different, statistically speaking, and they grow up differently, and, as a result, the personality 'types' most suited to being a successful MP are less manifest in women than they are in men.

And until these stupid women accept this, men will continue to have to endure this perpetual, unjustified, immature whining from women that men are somehow conspiring to discriminate against them.

The simple reality is that normal women cannot be bothered with going into politics, statistically speaking, though there are a few fine ones already in the House of Commons.

Forcing a 50/50 gender balance of MPs would, therefore, not give rise to 50% men and 50% women because the women's share of the seats would be occupied mostly by the type of misandric feminists that are already there. 

And 50% men, 5% women and 45% misandric feminists is not a fair and unbiased representation of the people.

Newsnight Replies

First Time Ever!

Last night, the BBC's flagship news programme, Newsnight, was hosted by the misandric feminist Kirsty Wark. The programme was devoted mostly to the way in which David Cameron, the new leader of the Tory party, was changing the party's focus.

Needless to say, David Cameron's recently-expressed desire to pressurise his party into pushing - by hook or by crook - more women into easily winnable parliamentary seats was discussed - but, surprisingly, not at great length.

Anyway, as you know, feminists like Ms Wark are forever claiming that the reason that there are not many women in high political positions is because they are discriminated against, when, of course, the truth is that not very many women are actually interested in politics.

Well, my following email to the Newsnight team will tell you the rest of the story.

[email protected]

Subject: Does Newsnight discriminate against women?

Dear Newsnight team,

On last night's programme which focused on David Cameron, you read out some 6 or 7 emails that were sent to you by the viewing public.

Every single one of these came from MEN.

Why did you not choose to air **any** of the emails sent in by women?

Are you purposely discriminating against women? Or, perhaps, was it the case that no women actually emailed you? - which might suggest that women are really not very interested in politics. Or, perhaps, was it the case that you considered the emails from women to be simply too banal and too uninteresting to air?

I would love to know why no emails from women were aired. And I look forward to receiving a very detailed reply.


webmaster at angryharry.com 


Melanie Phillips was also on the programme, and the missus and I thought that she was brilliant.

And, interestingly, in the past week, in both Chile and in Liberia a WOMAN has been elected as the national leader. Thus, both in South America and in Africa - hardly places where feminism has much of a stranglehold - the people voted in WOMEN to lead their countries. This would simply not be possible if - as feminists continually allege - men of the political classes tend to collude together to discriminate against them.

Furthermore, the elections of these women as national leaders in countries where feminism has minimal influence goes some way to showing just how useless and unnecessary is feminism when it comes to women achieving high political office.


Newsnight replies to my email - for the first time EVER! ...

Dear Harry,

Thank you for your e-mail. I can certainly confirm that many women e-mailed us regarding our special on David Cameron's Tory party, and a fair balance were selected to go to air. I do know, however, that a number of viewer comments had to be cut back for time during the course of the programme. If the unfortunate consequence was that our mails were entirely from men then we're sorry. We certainly wouldn't deliberately discriminate, although I do believe we tend to receive  more e-mails from men than women.

Kind regards, ...


Yo! He's admitted it!

But what he hasn't said is that, in fact, when it comes to emails concerning politics, those from men outnumber those from women by about 4 to 1. And if you do not believe me, go to the BBC's website and look for yourself.

In the political sections, men outnumber women by somewhere between 4 to 1 and 7 to 1.

Of course, I presume that the only reason that I got a reply was because, for the first time EVER, I had suggested that women were being discriminated against.

So there you have it. If you complain to the BBC that women are being discriminated against then you get a polite response to suggest otherwise, but if you suggest that men are being discriminated against then you get no response at all. 


Wikipedia Dominated By Men

May 2011

Wikipedia Dominated By Men Only 13 percent of Wikipedia articles are written by women.

Yep: Feminists are now actually complaining about the fact that only some 13% of voluntary contributors to Wikipedia are women - which is, they claim, evidence of discrimination!

Essentially, part of the feminist campaign of hatred towards men goes like this.

If women choose not to do something, then stir up hatred towards men by claiming that this choice is evidence of men discriminating against women.

Also see, ...

Kirsty Wark - Steve Jones - Parasites?

... to get some idea of just how nasty is Ms Kirsty Wark - in my view.



List of Articles

AH's RSS Feed


Recent comments from some emails which can be viewed in full here. ...

"I cannot thank you enough."

"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."

"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."

"Your articles and site in general have changed my life."

"I have been reading your articles for hours ..."

"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site."

"I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."

"It is terrific to happen upon your website."

"I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website."

"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours of entertainment."

"You are worth your weight in gold."

"Love your site, I visit it on a regular basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone mad."

"I ventured onto your site ... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"

"I love the site, and agree with about 98% of what you post."

"I have been reading your site for a while now and it is the best thing ever."

"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."

web tracker



On YouTube ...

Who Rules Over Us?

Part 1 On Free Will

Part 2 On Super-Organisms

Part 3 On Power

Part 4 On Reality


Popular articles ...

... War on Drugs - Who benefits from the war on drugs?

... A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle - Surely, the evidence would suggest otherwise.

... Why Governments Love Feminism - It is mostly to do with money and power, not equality.

... The Psychological Differences Between Men and Women - Are women really more emotional than men?

...  Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable -  especially since Hilary Clinton said that, "Women are the primary victims of war."

... Cultural Marxism And Feminism - The connections between Cultural Marxism and Feminism.

AH's RSS Feed

Front Page