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
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
half of them should earn below the average
And, of course, half of them should earn below the average
income, and half of them should also possess below the average amount of
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
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
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
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 ...
"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
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
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.
50% men, 5% women and 45% misandric feminists is not a fair and unbiased representation of