James Delingpole

James Delingpole: I don't automatically support Piers Morgan. So why should women automatically support Julia Gillard?

12 October 2013

9:00 AM

12 October 2013

9:00 AM

I’ve been racking my brains to think what I might have in common with Kim Jong Un and Piers Morgan. But apart from owning a spectacularly tiny penis, I simply cannot think. Certainly, when Kim is getting it in the neck for having one of his ex-girlfriends executed by firing squad to please his wife, or whenever Morgan is being criticised for being just the worst thing ever, I never find myself seized with some sudden hormonal urge to rush to their defence on account of the fact that we’re all part of the Brotherhood.

Maybe, though, we’re missing a trick. Maybe we chaps of the world could enjoy so much more leeway if only we showed a bit more male solidarity. ‘Of course I had to nuke Seoul. It was a pitiful cry for help against the oppressively fluffy global matriarchy which for years has made light of men’s innocent love of phallocentric symbols, weapons of massive destruction and total eradication of our enemies,’ Kim could plead — sure of a unanimously sympathetic response from at least the male part of the global media. ‘Of course I’m a dick. I’m a man and men are meant to be dicks. What are you: sexist or something?’ Morgan need only say — and every male’s heart would burst with pride at possessing the same number of ‘Y’ chromosomes as magnificent, brave, outspoken, righteously victimy Piers.

No. I think, in fact, such an approach would be very, very silly. As silly, say, as campaigning to have someone put on a banknote not because they’re our greatest novelist but because they wore a frilly bonnet and empire-line dresses rather than tall hats and britches; or choosing parliamentary candidates on the criterion of their having breasts; or trying to destroy the career of a football writer, not because he’s rubbish at his job — not that you’d know because you’d never even heard of him before — but purely because you’ve chosen to take offence about something he has written about your sex which is true but not nice.

The football writer’s name is Tam Cowan and he was recently suspended as a BBC radio commentator following complaints about a sexist column he wrote in Scotland’s Daily Record on women’s football. Fir Park — home ground of Motherwell — had just played host to an international women’s football match between Scotland and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cowan japishly suggested that it ought to be ‘torched’ in order to ‘cleanse’ it after ‘this turgid spectacle’.

Now I’d happily concede that it wasn’t the kind of deft lightness of touch that would have had me rushing to renew Cowan’s contract. (Especially not the crass joke about ‘little snatches’.) But then I’m not a Scottish tabloid editor and I don’t care about football, so it wasn’t aimed at me, whereas with its target audience — male Scottish football fans — I expect it went down rather well. When it wasn’t being studiedly offensive, after all, it expressed a sentiment with which few sports fans could honestly disagree: ‘Face it, folks, nobody cares about women’s football.’

I only got to hear of the story because it was artificially escalated (Ralph Miliband-style) to the point where the Radio 4 newsreader Alice Arnold was heard to declare that if Cowan had substituted ‘black people’ for ‘women’ it would have been ‘pretty shocking.’ Yes, love, I’m sure it would. But a) Cowan didn’t write ‘black people’, b) he was clearly exaggerating for effect in a column headlined ‘And now a message from the Dark Ages’, and c) who do you think you are, Alice Arnold anyway — a free individual undefined by and independent of your race, class, gender and sexual orientation or just another generic identikit female?

What depresses me about modern feminism is just how few women seem to realise how badly they’re betraying themselves. I’d expect it of a certain type of antediluvian Guardianista: they’ve got to scrape a living somehow. But when I see bright, funny, clever, generally free-spirited women I respect playing the same game, it makes me fear for the future of the human race.

Take Julia Gillard’s repeated attempts to distract from the fact that she was one of Australia’s worst-ever prime ministers by playing the sexism card. ‘I invite you to imagine it,’ she said. ‘A prime minister — a man in a blue tie — who goes on holidays to be replaced by a man with a blue tie.’ Thanks to investigations by the Weekend Australian, we now know that this was part of a concerted, deliberate and cynical strategy. Internal briefing notes from 2012 — peppered with hand-written notes from Gillard — show her campaign team trying to put a wedge between her political rival and his female voting base, essentially by seeking to position Gillard as the caring, nurturing alternative to Abbott’s unreconstructed Neanderthal.

Effective low politics this cultural-Marxist championing of special interest ‘victim’ groups may be — we’ve seen Cameron engaging in similar antics with his recent ministerial tinkerings — but morally and intellectually I find it indefensible. Sure there are parts of the world — the Umma, for example — where there remains much to be done to redress the injustices done to womankind. But in the liberated, post-1970s West? I don’t think so.

Like any devoted father of both boys and a girl, I’d always fight tooth and nail against any world which favoured the former over the latter. But I’ll fight equally hard against a world where the opposite rules apply, which is why I’m putting my balls on the line now with this column. Some women get it: Victoria Hislop, for example, in her recent declaration that women-only book prizes are an ‘anachronism’. Most don’t. As one who adores women as much as he loathes feminists, I find this state of affairs a deplorable pity.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Julio!

    It’s literally impossible for me to be a sexist winker, because I literally have a wife AND a daughter. So There! Ya-Boo-Sucks.

    Not how it works, Delingpole, and I think you’re cynical enough to know, but ignore it. You’d like to persuade us all that sexism, like racism and homophobia, is no longer an issue in the UK. Utter nonsense: when we look at the sort of stuff that people like you put on the internet (your rape ‘joke’ being just one of many bloody horrible examples) it becomes clear just how far we’ve got to go. You and Tam Cowan are nasty little men with nasty little minds. Sadly, the world is populated by others just like you. This is the reason all sentient women and any man with half a scoobe to rub together will continue to define themselves as feminists.

    • ChrisTavareIsMyIdol

      Yes, because women aren’t in the slightest sexist, racist or disgusting. Ever.

      If you don’t like these articles then don’t read them, just as I don’t read Suzanne Moore, Laura Penny or Polly Toynbee. See? Simple.

      Face facts chum, the world will never be the bland vegan beigeopolis you want. And I thank God for it.

      • Julio!

        I’m not entirely sure why you equate veganism, or indeed blandness, with feminism. Perhaps just handy labels, right? I disagree with them, but then, I’d be the first to label you a panting Delingpole lapdog, so who am I to chuck the first stone?

        But on your more important point: of course individual women can be sexist, racist and disgusting (sometimes all at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWxXHb0ElaE.) However, I’m not talking about individual acts of sexism here, but rather institutional sexism. For a few basic points, entertainingly written, you could do worse than check out http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lauren-davidson/sexism-still-all-around-us_b_2480505.html.

        Finally, on your point of simply looking the other way, and not challenging this sort of nonsense. No, I don’t think so. Just as you had every right not to read my comment, but chose not only to do so, but also to challenge it, I feel like exercising my right to call a witfeck a witfeck when I see one. And Mr. Delingpole remains firmly in the witfeck camp.

        “It’s difficult to see the glass ceiling because it’s made of glass.
        Virtually invisible. What we need is for more birds to fly above it and shit all over it, so we can see it properly.”
        Caitlin Moran,
        How to Be a Woman

        • Adaadat

          Please learn the definition of ‘institutional’.

          • Julio!

            Examples of Institutions: Industry; Banking; The Government; The Police; The Military; The BBC; The Spectator(?);
            Examples of Institutional Sexism: The pervading sexism which exists within each of the above institutions.

            Yawn. Next, please.

          • Adaadat

            I asked you to learn the definition of ‘institutional’. Examples, perhaps many, of sexism within these organisations is not proof of sexism ingrained within the operation of the services they provide.

            The police are not trained to enforce the law based on a person’s sex and neither is the law they enforce codified according to sex – or race for that matter. The same applies to every other institution you have mentioned.

            Yawn. I fear this could become rather tedious.

          • Julio!!

            Ever wonder why, in the police, there are PCs and then there are WPCs?

          • Pootles

            Er, no there aren’t, there are just PCs. Same as with the armed forces, the WRNS went a long time ago, for example.

          • Julio!!

            As an ex-cop, I can tell you quite simply that you’re wrong. Try googling wpc, and see what you get. One example among many: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170942/WPCs-arrested-abusing-train-guard-drunk-tried-free-ride-home.html

          • Pootles

            You must be a very ex cop then. Try this: http://www.policeuk.com/police_ranks.php rather than the Daily Mail (!) which, of course, would prefer the old nomenclature.

          • Julio!

            Yes, it’s been a few years since Thames Valley Police, but I can say with certainty that, back then, every female police officer was referred to a WPC. On the other hand, I’m delighted if the police are making efforts to change this now.

            Ultimately, though, the fact that major newspapers (and yes, I use that term loosely), such as the Daily Mail, Times, Mirror, Guardian etc. are all still regularly referring to WPCs, is indicative of my point, I think, that sexism is alive and well and rearing its ugly head all over the UK every day.

          • Pootles

            Ah, so I will now formally apologise for suggesting you were an Oxford know it all. My apologies.

            I suspect that the continued use of WPC is more a case of sloppiness on the part of journos who know very little and write half baked stuff in a rush. No-one takes any damn notice anyway.

          • Julio!

            No apologies necessary. But thank you anyway. I’d still describe myself as an Oxford know it all. But a free range Oxford know it all; not a college-affiliated Oxford know it all.

          • Lungfish

            jolly good splendid old bean-

        • global city

          but you DID cast the first stone. Go back and re-read your first post? Not only was it full of contempt it was also rife with cliches.

          • Julio!

            I’d argue Delingpole chucked the first rock with his lowest common denominator column. But I’d put my hands up to coming in with the next. And you’ve got me bang to rights on the contempt bit. As for cliches, like quiches, a man can never bring too many of them to the party.

          • global city

            Fair enough. I never expect posts on pages like this to be thoroughly thought out presentations. I certainly do not do that with my own!

          • Lungfish

            but you must admit, with all respect, sometimes the police make mistakes?

        • Lungfish

          Ah, I read this thread from the bottom up- you are bleeding heart mone

          • Julio!!

            So, no lovely convivial beer and chat then? If you ever feel like a pint with a socialist ex-copper, I’ll be the one with crew -cut hair, a packet of cheese and onion crisps, and a copy of Mao’s little red book. Oh, and I’ll be drinking champagne like it’s going out of fashion.

    • Smithersjones2013

      Is there a clinic where such sad brainwashed souls as yourself can be rehabilitated?

      • Julio!!

        Yup. It’s called The Eagle and Child. I’ll be popping there for a quick pint, just as soon as I’ve finished pointing and laughing at you.

        • The Red Bladder

          The bird and baby eh? Used to do a lovely pint of Directors in there – believe it or not, back in the late 60s. Mind you it is a fairly common pub name!

          • Julio!!

            I drank one for you tonight. I’m nothing if not inclusive.


        • Pootles

          Oh, an Oxford know it all ? That makes sense.

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          Always made me smile that pub. Nothing like naming your local boozer after an ancient piece of trojan bestiality.

        • Lungfish

          I’m in there quite often!

  • JKCharles

    Finally common sense instead of the sexism from modern day feminists

  • ChrisTavareIsMyIdol

    The Twitter outrage bus will be calling at Delingpole

  • Bring Back Free Speech

    You are absolutely right, Delingpole, and I speak as a woman. By the way your funny yet serious and honest column is the reason I subscribe to the Spectator. When i vote it is about policies: the gender of the individual candidate is irrevelant. Left-wingers like Polly Toynee, Harriet Harman and Julia Gillard don’t speak for me because I despise their policies. As my moniker suggest I believe in absolute free speech and liberty of the press, as well as low taxes (easliy obtained by cutting mountains of waste and leaving the EU, a financial disaster as well as a political one -see Tim Congdon, Mike Denham and David Craig). These low taxes would give women as well as men to make their own choices in looking after their children, education and health.
    In general terms, feminism has become obsessed by forced careerism , daycare (as if that is best for a child) and abortion – anti child measures in other words. Blatantly unfair treatment of men in divorce and child custody is another ‘feminist’ mantra I disapprove of – shared custody is usually the fairest solution. Like socialism, feminism isn’t about fairness. It is about spite and revenge, and makes everyone unhappier in the end. It is a construct of artificial gender war, as socialism is of class war. Unfortunately it is part of modern pc conformism, and women are sometimes more likely to be conformist – not me though! Certainly, at the UKIP conference I would estimate only about 10% to be female.
    Most men I meet treat me well, including those close to me, and I have no reason to believe this is unusual. I have no interest in joining socialism’s gender war.

    • rtj1211

      A most interesting study would seek to correlate low self-esteem, self-harm (I include semi-alcoholic behaviour in that), hatred and a need to dominate with radical feminism.

      My personal experience in life is that the correlation is strong, but I’ve never done the numbers.

      If that is so, then it’s hardly a great badge for ‘feminism’ is it??

    • NeilMc1

      I wonder BBFS, what someone voted you down for. You speak of liberty, freedom and equality, yet someone, presumably a woman, found something distasteful in that as it did not support the bigoted message of the left/femi nists/globalwarmists, etc.
      Whoever it was doesn’t understand that you will be treated as an equal to anyone because you think and act like an equal.

      • Bring Back Free Speech

        Thanks NeilMc1

    • StephanieJCW

      “In general terms, feminism has become obsessed by forced careerism , daycare (as if that is best for a child) and abortion – anti child measures in other words”

      What rot. Feminism isn’t obsessed with forced careerism and daycare isn’t ‘anti-child’. Abortion maybe seen that way, but it’s more ‘pro personal autonomy over one’s body’. Forced pregnancy can hardly be called pro-child.

      “Blatantly unfair treatment of men in divorce and child custody is another ‘feminist’ mantra I disapprove of – shared custody is usually the fairest solution.”

      Shared custody works in situations where this is possible. In real terms most children want a base. Close to school, friends. Where their toys, clothes, books etc are. This is incredibly difficult to split between two homes. I agree with the concept but in practice it has to be applied carefully. I lived primarily with my mom because my father moved to the other side of Birmingham and it would have been incredibly unfair to me and my brothers to split us between two homes. As well as being impractical.

      The divorce courts don’t favour women, they favour primary carers. In trying to fight the notion that mothers should be, by rights, primary carers they are also supporting greater involvement of fathers which, one day may be reflected in the divorce courts as soon as men form 50% of primary carers.

      • Bring Back Free Speech

        I disagree completely with your views SJCW Feminisim has consistently emphasised state payment for childcare,which has to be paid for by one salary families, who aren’t even allowed to transfer income between themselves for tax purposes. Day care is extremely sad for children, tiny children crying for their mothers.. The ‘hostile defamation’ as Peter Hitchens put it of suggesting that full-time mothers spend their time cleaning behind fridges, when it is about providing a happy social and educational environment.
        The divorce courts are generally anti-male, which is why women from other countries try to get their cases heard here. I do not wishto engage in further discussion with you as you have an unpleasant and aggressive tone which does your arguments no favours.I

        • StephanieJCW

          You aren’t making any sense, with the greatest of respect.

          1) How on God’s good earth is subsidised childcare, rendering it more affordable tantamount to ‘forced careerism’? Surely it is about offering greater choice to people to be able to combine work with children. Something of particular importance those who need two incomes to get by.

          2) How on earth is subsidised childcare paid for by one-income families? What about those of us not in families and dual income families. Where exactly do their taxes go? Those working and using childcare also pay taxes. And many one income families also use childcare (mainly to give the stay-at-home parent a break). But none of this equates to ‘forced careerism’.

          3) The debate on daycare is just that, a debate. It hasn’t been settled either way. There is no evidence that adults who were children in daycare are negatively affected. Also there seems to be a strange suggestion that it needs to be the mother that NEEDS to be at home. It’s also not true that daycare is just filled with tiny children crying for their mothers (fathers don’t matter?) There are many good parents who would never dream of using daycare if they felt their children were harmed by it.

          Divorce courts aren’t anti-male. They try to ensure a fairer split of assets when one spouse has abandoned a career for full-time parenthood or have an understanding of marriage which sees that two people become one, and that includes their assets, which are then split. The courts do favour primary caregivers which typically tend to be women. You even seem to support that viewpoint.

          My tone is not aggressive, you are just incapable of logically tackling the viewpoints made, instead basing your argument on nothing more than gut feel and emotion. So it is reasonable that you avoid logical discussion. I don’t blame you.

          • Bring Back Free Speech

            The fact that you have answered twice when I said I don’t want to see your name in my e-mail box shows that you are indeed unpleasant and aggressive. There is substantial evidence on the malign affects of daycare actually, but I’m not going to answer leftie trolls point by point. If I wanted to, I’d go on the Guardian. I come on this space to get away from socialist orthodoxy.. As for my ‘logical incapabliities’ I scored 140 in verbal reasoning in a Hans Eysenck IQ test, which i think to be a reliable source than you. You will never convince me because you have neither truth nor reason on your side.

          • Julio!

            But she does, at least, have grammar and the ability to construct a decent paragraph on her side.

            I cannot be bothered to meet your more foolish arguments point-by-point, so I’ll just say, BBFS, you really are a bloody idiot.

            Apologies for lowering the tone, but the whole troll-casting is utter nonsense in this case. Trolling involves being a cynical, content-free prick, just for the fun of it. You could occasionally accuse someone like me, or — more regularly — Delingpole of this. But not Stephanie, who has only made reasoned, intelligent arguments here.

          • StephanieJCW

            That is not what you said. You said you do not wish to engage in discussion which is fine. Don’t.

            However do not blame me for your inability to manage your mailbox. I haven’t emailed you once. Manage your mailbox / Spectator settings why don’t you and don’t police how others respond on an open board.

        • StephanieJCW

          It is interesting that those who rail against childcare and insist a parent (typically the mother) stays at home with their child, are most opposed to the primary caregiver being looked after financially in case of divorce.

          So what is a woman to do, if she abandons her career to raise children and then is faced with divorce? Just live in poverty and be grateful for it, while her husband holds on to his hard earned assets?

          Surely in such a case it would be madness to stop working?

  • David

    Feminism, like the green movement, is simply just the modern face of socliasm. Socialism involves degrading yourself to the status of victim; only then can you be the recipient of looted wealth and gain special privilege.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      “Socialism involves degrading yourself to the status of victim; only then
      can you be the recipient of looted wealth and gain special privilege.”

      You’d better tell all the lads on here complaining about how they’re the real victims that they’re on a slippery slope.

    • Howard Roark

      Originally the womens’s lib was an expression of classical liberalism (today often called libertarianism as opposed to left-wing “liberal” groups) because they saw women as humans with the same human rights as any other human.
      The problems started when the left hijacked the true feminism; which is simply humanism with a focus on problems facing women.

      The Right should reclaim true feminism with a consistent fight against Islam, which is the greatest threat to women’s freedom today.

  • Hood

    Come on now Delingpole, be fair, look at the tireless campaigning by feminists opposing forced marriages and FGM suffered by their muslim sisters living in the UK.

    • Smithersjones2013

      And compare that to the hundreds of Hattie Harman clones who preach the mantra of self-serving privilege, entitlement and discrimination. Bigots all…..

  • rtj1211

    There’s another side to this argument which is more sinister which is this: if you, as a man, criticise a woman’s performance, not because she is female, but because she is incompetent or, worse, unprofessional, you are immediately branded as ‘sexist’ or ‘thinking that women should stay at home’. It’s total bollocks.

    I have worked for brilliant women who were CEOs of companies which were a benchmark for how women should organise business to fit in with family life. I’ve worked for a woman who became a Professor. I’ve worked for a woman who ran a research group. I’ve worked for a woman who is Director of a FTSE listed plc.

    I’ve worked with a large variety of women, from the aggressive to the sweet, from the ambitious to the ambitious for their children, from the thuggish to the serene.

    I really enjoyed working for two women and didn’t enjoy working for the other two. Nothing sexist about that. I enjoyed working with about 30 women and hated working with about 5. So nothing sexist about that.

    But apparently ‘I’m sexist’.

    Until women accept that criticism is not a sexist issue it’s a personal issue, they are the sexist ones.

    There are incompetent women and mafioso-style women. There are incompetent men and men who behave like hoods.

    But perhaps the biggest criminality of any man or woman is this: you make it clear that someone must leave your employment, but then make out that it is your choice where they go to work in future. You back that up by being prepared to praise them to the skies if they do what you want but trash them to the death if they say: ‘thank you, but my life is my life and you are no longer part of it.’

    If there is a single man or woman who says that that is acceptable behaviour, then they need their children taking into care, they need to see a prison cell or be locked up in a mental health institution and they need to understand that they are not a fit and proper person to be in any position of responsibility, ever again, in their lives.

    Now I wonder how many people will call that sexist if it is applied to a woman but normal and acceptable if applied to a man. In my life, I could legitimately apply it to both sexes and one of the women it could be applied to has so many traits in common with my father that it is a measure of character, not gender.

  • Eddie

    Bottom line is this: everyone these days is allowed – indeed, encouraged – to be sexist and racist these days, except white men. So we have institutional sexism against men, esp white men – incl working class men – whilst privileged women and ethnic box-tickers leapfrog over better white males to plum positions.
    Don’t believe me? OK – well compare any selection process which is decided purely on merit – for example, appearing on Mastermind or University Challenge on TV – to one where the ethnic and gender balance is rigged (in who presents BBC programmes perhaps? Or any reality TV show?) White men dominate where merit is allowed to let talent flourish – which means white men must be being kept back by racist and sexist discrimination in other contexts, surely?
    And women are very well off indeed – most benefits claimed are claimed by women; most gender-specific health spending goes on female health (male health is always neglected); the police and law treat women leniently; women get massive maternity payouts and 70% of divorce assets, with automatic custody of kids.
    Most of their so-called misogyny and sex discrimination against women is fabricated by the Fawcett feminasties – man haters all. For example, there is NO unfair gender pay gap – there is a pay gap if you play with averages, because men work longer, harder, and in ore risky private careers then women, who gravitate to safe jobs in state institutions – councils, hospitals, schools, which offer security. But there is NO unfair gender pay gap at all – it’s all feminist victimhood fantasy.
    The people I know who are worst off are all men. Middle class women sponge off their suffering too, to claim their multiple benefits and special treatments.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      Why exactly do you separate quiz shows from the rest of ‘reality TV’? Do you think it’s scripted? Or are you arguing that the type of people with an encyclopedic knowledge of early 20th century lawnmowers, or the life and times of Charles Trevelyan, are in any way more normal than any other reality TV contestant?

      • Eddie

        No, dear. You have misunderstood.
        My point is that getting on Mastermind or University Challenge team is a matter of MERIT. That is why they are majority white male.
        Compare please to the teams chosen by a committee of pc ‘positive action’ pillocks – the ‘vibrant and diverse’ shortlists for book prizes, the demand for socalled ‘fair’ representation – i.e. 50% women – even if 90% of the talent is male?
        And even if things are 100% fair and merit is what decides who is on a University Challenge team, the feministas (female and male) whinge about unfairness. See the moany letter in this week’s Radio Times, whingeing about an all male team representing the once female-only Somerville college (the team was selected by a free and fair internal college quiz where the best 4 people got on the team – all male, as it happens).
        Feminists do NOT believe in fairness or in selection by merit – they want less good women to leapfrog over better men. Ditto for those from the diversity and race relations industries.
        And a common thing these days is every appointment being made to a woman and specifically a black woman – leading to some right wallies in high profile posts. Also, another trend, is for TV shows to have all female presenters or book shortlists to have all female writers (ie BBC short story comp). If these were all male, the feminists would soon be beating their flat chests in rage at the dreadful sexism on display.
        Feminism = selfishness + sexism
        (feminism is it seems to be defined, that is).

        • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

          Sorry sparkles, that won’t really do. Unless you can explain why, objectively, an in depth knowledge of the moons of Saturn or WW2 submarines or any other idiosyncratic area of expertise is ‘MERIT’, but the ability to bake a cake or sing in front of an audience isn’t then your complaint doesn’t work.

          Now you might think obscure, detailed knowledge about a niche subject, learnt to a degree that suggests one is on the autistic spectrum, is more worthy than other talents. That’s fine. However it’s very, very weak sauce upon which to hang your theory that all the women are picking on you.

          Just get a girlfriend mate.

          • Eddie

            Oh dear. On the blob again, Sammy?

          • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

            I see biology wasn’t your specialist subject.

          • Eddie

            Do you know what selection by merit actually means?
            It means that in any given field, no one is given unfair advantage – say, because of gender or race: something which the HR diversity queens you rule us disagree with – they have plenty of policies designed to unfairly keep men down and overpromote women.

    • StephanieJCW

      women get massive maternity payouts and 70% of divorce assets, with automatic custody of kids.

      a) Considering the incredibly low level at which SMP is set – what are these ‘massive maternity payouts’ that mothers get?
      b) Does this mean you favour doing away with maternity leave and making it fairer – parental leave and encourage fathers to share the load of childcare equally with mothers? I presume you do.

      b) Automatic custody is granted to the primary carer not the mother. It just so happens that the mother is the primary carer. Is the argument here that custody should not go to the primary carer? How would residence work when parents live a great distance apart?

      c) Where is the support for you claim that 70% of assets on divorce go to women? If this is the case I presume this is largely made up of the value of the marital home? I think then a situation whereby the house is forcibly sold and the proceeds split is what you suggest, which is fine. What happens if the couple had children? Where do they go?

      Agree on the pay gap though. It’s depressing that it is always misrepresented.

      • Eddie

        You are a brave woman Stephanie to agree with me on the gender pay gap, often using as a stick to beat men with by feminists demanding unfair privilege.
        It is all utter fabrication though – there is no unfair gender pay gap. Males/females are paid the same for the same job (though the professional feminists grab that stinking red herring called ‘equivalent’ work to try and argue a nursery nurse should be paid the same as an airline pilot.
        Maths is maths, and no amount of spurious playing with averages will convince me that women are paid less than men. Over a lifetimes, yes, because they do less work, less risky work, innately fail to strive to the top levels, and tend to work for safe state jobs. Women also get far more out of the benefits and health system than men, don’t forget.
        Maternity pay? The stat payment is fine – but not the one linked to income. Why should millionaire women and the few who earn £1 million a year get £20 k a week? How is that helping anyone but these greedy so and sos, And the amount the taxpayer loses with women getting months and months off work in the state sector is staggering – billions lost per year, esp in schools and other female-dominated areas.
        Just like the photo above – all trying so hard to look earnest and oppressed, whereas many of those women no doubt live in million quid houses and have second homes in Tuscany. Not so different to the actual suffragettes then – who despised ordinary women and men, and gallivanted around screaming ‘votes for women’ because they had private incomes and maids/servants to do all their dirty work. Many suffragettes didn’t want ordinary people to have the vote – that was one thing that motivated upper class women to support suffragettes (seeing as men only go the vote in the late 1800s anyway). And besides, women did have the vote in local elections – in 1870.

        • StephanieJCW

          There isn’t a maternity pay beyond the initial six weeks that is linked to income. Precious few women are earning a million pounds through PAYE and so I don’t think it’s right to argue about the masses being paid out to women in maternity pay.

          6 weeks at 90% the SMP against which the employer credits NI (and small employers credit something like 102% of NI and so make money on SMP).

          As for the women taking time off. I am not sure your maths work. How is the sector losing money. Previously they would just leave work. So they still are missing from employment figures.

          Unless the argument is that neither women nor men should take anytime off after having a child for parental leave (paid or unpaid).

          I think that is a rather extreme argument to make and fully understand and support the parent who wishes to bow out of the work place for the early phase of a child’s life.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Note well how silent Feminists are on the issue of Islamic misogyny. Once you girls were home and dry it was a case of, “Pull the ladder up, Jacqui”.

    • Samuel Kaine Wheeler

      Really? Julie Bindel talks about the subject regularly, including direct attacks on the oppressive nature of the Burkha.

  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    Why the picture of a load of actresses?

  • StephanieJCW

    I never understood why I had to support someone because they shared my genitalia either.
    I didn’t agree with Julia Gillard politically so why support her? That said it was infuriating that there some dinosaurs who made a point of insulting her based on her sex (or the fact she has no kids) like that is relevant.
    That just gave her ammunition to play the sex card.

  • Lungfish

    women are daft by nature- lets not pretend otherwise. The very fact that Julia had a little sob when she lost ‘power’ only emphaszses the point

  • Rkd


    Can’t stand muddleheaded feminists and their convoluted grandstanding. Feminism is just the a tool for wealthy privileged women to use to play down their lefty guilt, blame others for their shortcomings and give them some skin in the victim game.