According to some, we ought to lay down our tools. The fight for social justice has been won, and the world is now ruled by feminists and socialists according to politically correct principles. It says so in a book:
‘Buchanan’s Dictionary of Quotations for Right-minded People’ has been edited by a writer in the USFR, the Union of Socialist Feminist Republics (1997), formerly the United Kingdom. The book is for people who are tired of living in a country run in accordance with socialist, feminist, and politically correct principles.
Don’t just take the word of a (possibly vanity-published) book. Richard Littlejohn also thinks so, as does pretty much every other right-wing columnist. Even the Norwegian murderer seems to believe that social justice is on top.
I am entirely unsure as to why this rag-tag band seem to think that this could possibly be a bad thing. Imagine a world in which there was gender equality. Imagine a world where there was racial equality. Imagine a world where every single person had the same opportunities in life. In this world, the word “equality” would be unnecessary, as individual differences would be meaningless and irrelevant. In this world, any person who got sick, or was born with special needs would have the same access to the same care and nobody would begrudge this. Every person would be seen as a person. There would be no genocide as there would be no hate. There would be no class war, as class would be a historical curiosity. There would be no rape, no sexual coercion, as all would understand principles of respect and consent.
Demonstrably, we do not live in this world, and that’s a real bummer as it would be absolutely fucking brilliant. It would be about as dystopian as being trapped in a room made out of chocolate and having to eat your way out, being greeted on the other side by a fluffy pile of hypoallergenic kittens that shat rainbows.
There are two questions here, then, and the answers to both are related. Why do some believe we live in a world run by feminists and socialists? And why do they think it is a bad thing?
The answer, I think, is because these people construct life as a zero-sum game. These people believe that they were born special and that nobody can take that away from them. To point out that they are wealthy and powerful by an accident of birth rather than anything else is inherently threatening to them. They look down on others–people born the wrong gender or race or sexual orientation, and are frightened that they are only a few genes away from oppression.
Equality is scary, and any moves to equality are terrifying to those who believe in the socialist-feminist dystopia as that would take away their special status, stripping them of the wealth and privilege that allow them to look down on their fellow human beings in disgust.
Letting go of the hate and fear, embracing a world where they were just like everyone else would be beneficial to them. Equality benefits all–that is why it is called equality.
We are nowhere near that point. And I am trapped with the curious feeling that it might be quite nice to live in Richard Littlejohn’s brain.
Another angry woman 
Oh this is so good. If only my dad had the internet.
‘A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.’
Milton Friedman 1912-2006 American economist and statistician: ‘Free to Choose’ (1980)
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil women is that good women do nothing.’
(on The Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, a militant feminist politician with very pretty eyes, and her like)
Mike Buchanan 1957- British writer: ‘David and Goliatha: David Cameron – heir to Harman?’ (2010)
It comes as a surprise to learn that I’m ‘wealthy and powerful’, I must say. The days when one could afford to employ a chauffeur – Paul Carrington in my French travelogue ‘OUI OUI SOUNDS LIKE WEE WEE HAHAHAHA I AM SO FUNNY’ – are behind one, sadly. And the chap’s a socialist, would you believe? Well, when he’s short of money, anyway. When he wants money or has it, he embraces capitalism with some enthusiasm…
Off to make a cup of tea. Why do I not have people to carry out such tasks for me?
Perhaps you can answer these two questions:
Why do you believe we live in a world run by feminists and socialists?
And why do you think it is a bad thing?
Good afternoon. I don’t want to re-type the content of my last two books, but herewith a few thoughts off the top of my head. I said this country (not the world) is run by them.
Feminists first. As Esther Vilar pointed out in ‘The Manpulated Man’ (1971) the real oppressed people in the West are the majority of men, who are of low status, and who are manipulated by women in a variety of ways. It is largely these men’s taxes which support (for example) the single mothers who wouldn’t countenence them as partners, and pay for the pensions of women who haven’t worked long enough to pay their full contributions. Women show a relative preference for not working or for working part-time throughout their lives, not just when the kiddies are young and maybe in school. The legislation giving taxpayers’ money to single mothers (many of whom choose to be single) is acceptable because it is ‘child-centric’. In fact it’s simply ‘woman-centric’. Women don’t need to be paid to sustain a life of motherhood. I refer you also to Steve Moxon’s insightful ‘The Woman Racket’.
The inclusion of the ‘Positive Action’ principle in the Equality Act 2010 was a blatant example of feminist thinking – the Bill was the brainchild of Harriet Harman and enacted by David Cameron just two months ater taking office. Now public sector organisations must drive towards equalities of gender etc, even if men outnumber women applying for top jobs 10:1.
In 2008 The Blessed Harriet introduced legilslation enabling political parties to have women-only PPC shorlists for the coming 25 years. Good thing we didn’t have them when Winston Churchill was considering going into political life… under the legislation the least capable woman is deemed more suitable for political office than the most capable man. Only to a feminist could that make sense. And what about the democratic process? Was the possibility of women-only PPC shortlists mentioned in the 2005 Labour manifesto. No, of course not. Unlike a commitment to a referendum on membership of the EU, but that’s another matter. Can’t immediately think of a feminist angle on the EU referendum issue, but if you give me a few minutes…
I worked for the Conservatives over 2006-8 but resigned my party membership when Dave adopted women-only shortlists in the run-up to the 2010 election. This was done for image purposes and had nothing to do with getting more well-qualified people into political life. Everything is being distorted to make militant feminists happy. But they never will be happy, so what’s the point? We should treat militant feminists like we would treat any other difficult people – ignore them, and let them stamp their feet and whine. They’ll tire themselves out eventually.
Socialists. The driving philosophy for many years in this country has been centre-left, and a prime supporter of the philosophy is David Cameron. As I point out in ‘I LIKE IT WHEN I GUFF AND I CAN SMELL IT’, this should not surprise us – he clearly has a female pattern brain (recommended reading on gender-pattern brains – Prof Baron-Cohen’s ‘The Essential Difference’ and Prof Louann Brizendine’s ‘The Female Brain’), in which emotion trumps reason every time, as we can see from his protection of the budget of the NHS, which is a byword for ineffectiveness and inefficiency. People only like the NHS because they think it’s ‘free’ (and for non-taxpayers, many of them socialists, I suppose it is). And how does Dave justify his position on the NHS? It supported his disabled son. What sort of a way is this to make policy? Are we to assume that if he hadn’t had a disabled son he’d have been willing to make the tough but wise decision to privatise most of what the NHS delivers? GPs on £100,000+ p.a – you couldn’t make it up. Only in a country driven by socialist thinking and powerful vested interest groups abusing the long-suffering taxpayer could such a farce continue.
I’m ready for you now, doctor…
This is one of the funniest things and I really do hope you’re not being serious. Are you unable to appraise evidence, or did you cite debunked research on purpose to piss me off?
So the answer to the first question is “lack of understanding of research”. Still nothing on why it’s a bad thing.
Oh, I see how this works. Things you don’t agree with are ‘debunked research’. Hmm, that will lead to intelligent debate…
Why are feminism and socialism bad things? Not for any theoretical reasons, they simply don’t work in the real world. Never have, never will, because they’re based not on the realities of human nature, but on fantasies and delusions. They can only – and inevitably – lead to social and economic failure and misery. Only lefties are puzzled as to why. To righties the reasons are blindingly obvious.
It would be churlish to deny that there is widespread support of socialism and feminism, so I won’t deny it. I leave you instead with an apt quotation:
‘The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.’
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970 Nobel prize-winning philosopher, logician, historian, free trade champion, and all-round top bloke
Human NATURE?
All right. I get it. Ev-psych drivel.
If we’re going with Bertrand Russell quotes:
“For my part, while I am as convinced a Socialist as the most ardent Marxian, I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase the happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race.”
Hmm, not one of Bertie’s pithiest quotations, is it? Fell asleep halfway through. More from him:
‘Envy is the basis of democracy.’
The Conquest of happiness (1930)
‘The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.’
Sceptical Essays (1928)
‘Feminists really get on my tits.’
The Problem with Women (1932)
‘All movements go too far.’
‘There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate government action.’
My personal favourite quotesmith is Mark Twain:
‘Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she has laid an asteroid.’
‘It seems a great pity they allowed Jane Austen to die a natural death.’
Must dash. Rice to strain, chilli con carne to microwave… a man’s work is never done.
I must repeat your earlier tweet because it was that awesome. “YES! YES WE CAN! They want a dystopia? We’ll GIVE them one.”
How great is that for a political manifesto?
As for how people end up with such a confused idea of how the world works… I believe it’s because they want to “rebel” but they can’t stand disagreeing with Big Daddy. Or perhaps because they just want to please Big Daddy so much. And because Big Daddy says all the evils in the world are caused by feminists and commies, they go along with that. They take it to extremes and turn around and say “look, Daddy, I am fighting the evil feminist and commies”.
Yet Daddy never shows them any affection or approval. How sad.
Hi ladies, I’m back. Sorry Mary, but you’ve lost me there. Who (or possibly what) is Big Daddy? Let me try to analyse this with the full force of my man logic. Big Mummy would be Harridan Harman (nee Harman) presumably? Now she’s long been married to another Labour MP – the one with the understandably haunted expression – do you mean him? On second thoughts you can’t mean him, because it would obviously give me great pleasure to disagree with him, never mind her.
‘I love it when my period comes round. I can really be myself again.’
Jo Brand 1957- English comedienne
‘There are two theories about arguing with women. Neither one works.’
Roy Rogers 1911-98 American singer and cowboy actor
‘One hears that the “women of the United States” are up in arms about this or that. The plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust.’
HL Mencken 1880-1956 American journalist and essayist
‘Your liberal is an eternal sixteen-year-old, forever rebellious, forever oblivious to the nasty realities of life, forever looking FORWARD to some impossible revolution in human nature.’
Tony Hendra 1941- English satirist and writer: ‘The Book of Bad Virtues’ (1995)
‘But what first, Debbie, attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?’
‘Mrs Merton’ (Caroline Aherne) to Debbie McGee: ‘The Mrs Merton Show’
‘Love… the delightful interval between meeting a beautiful girl and discovering she looks like a haddock.’
John Barrymore 1882-1942 American actor
I just want to point out that it’s not only “ladies” who you’re speaking to Mike (and disagreeing with for that matter).
This ‘feminist’-socialist conspiracy’ nonsense is a myth of middle-aged white men who are worried they are losing their grip on the world despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s sad and deeply unedifying when there are so many real problems in the world.
Fair point on the gender front T, many thanks, and my apologies. But I think the increasing influence of militant feminism IS one of those real problems, partly because militant feminists are so unrepresentative of the women they claim to represent. I think women have been encouraged to trade in their traditional search for happiness in their lives, for a search for power. The results are predictable. No wonder so many women are rebelling by seeking a better work/life balance in their lives, by which they always mean (in my experience, anyway) they want less work, and more life.
I obviously have no problem with equality of opportunity in the boardroom and elsewhere, but outcomes should reflect individual merit. If women make up 100% of boards on the basis of merit, good for them. I’d be the last to complain. But gender eqaulity initiatives make women look weak and manipulative.
The ‘glass ceiling’ theory of women’s ‘under-representation in the boardroom’ is one of 30 assertions I consider to be variously delusions, fantasies and myths, as outlined in my book ‘I DONE A POO IN MY PANTS’. I also explore the 20 real reasons why men outnumber women in the senior reaches of business etc.
‘Whay makes equality such a difficult business is that we only want it with our superiors.’
Henri Becque 1837-99 French dramatist and critic: ‘Quelles litteraires’ (1890)
‘The sadness of the women’s movement is that they don’t allow the necessity of love. See, I don’t personally trust any revolution where love is not allowed.’
Maya Angelou 1928- American novelist and poet: in ‘California Living’ 14 May 1975
‘A fair society is one in which some people fail – and they may fail in something other than precise, demographically representative proportions.’
William A Henry III 1950-94 American cultural critic: ‘In Defence of Elitism’ (1994)
‘You cannot claim both full equality and special dispensation.’
William Raspberry 1935- African-American Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist
‘There are three intolerable things in life – cold coffee, lukewarm champagne, and overexcited women.’
Orson Welles 1915-85 American filmmaker etc.
‘If you can react the same way to winning and losing, that is a big accomplishment. That quality is important because it stays with you the rest of your life.’
Chris Evert 1954- attractive American tennis player of the female persuasion
‘I’ll not listen to reason… Reason always means what someone else has got to say.’
Elizabeth Gaskell 1810-65 English novelist: ‘Cranford’ (1853)
Stavvers, I’d very much like to include your original blog in my forthcoming book on feminism. Would you be happy for me to do so? By way of appreciation I’ll mail you a complimentary copy from my ‘author’s copies’. Thanks
No. I do not consent to any of my material being used.
OK Stavvers, thanks anyway, Shame though – the piece was well-argued, passionate and witty, while most pro-equality and pro-feminism writing has less entertainment value than a 2003 Ford Fiesta gearbox maintenance manual. Loved in particular the hypoallergenic kittens with the bowel control issues. Have a good weekend!
‘I suppose true sexual equality will come when a general called Anthea is found having an unwise lunch with a young, unreliable model from Spain.’
John Mortimer 1923-2009 English novelist, barrister and dramatist: ‘The Spectator’ 26 March 1994
Your kitten reference reminded me of something I once wrote in a similar vein, namely that there was a book whose title alone would make a feminist kick a sickly puppy into a fast-flowing river: ‘I DONE ANOTHER POO SHOULD I SEE A DOCTOR OH NOES’
I love your blog and completely agree with this post. So please take this comment in the spirit in which it’s intended.
> It would be about as dystopian as being
> trapped in a room made out of chocolate
> and having to eat your way out, being
> greeted on the other side by a fluffy pile
> of hypoallergenic kittens that shat
> rainbows.
Day #189: They’ve replaced the chocolate again while we slept. I thought the walls were getting thinner where John and I had worked, skipping sleep, skipping meals. But they’ve swung new blocks into place, panelling it over with ganache and hazelnut crunch, and I don’t know if I can face starting again.
We’d gotten so close we could hear them, out there, mewling softly. Maggie broke through, once. After the first kitten fastened onto her face and defecated rainbows directly into her eyes, all she sees now are colours. Sometimes, when you look out of the corner of your eyes, you can catch them beneath her cheeks, unnatural blues and greens, shifting as you watch. She doesn’t speak much any more.
I don’t know why we dig, except that it’s better than doing nothing at all.
I just knew you’d all want to learn of my forthcoming ninth book, ‘I DONE A POO ON THE FLOOR LOL’, my third book in a row exploring the dire impact of man-hating radical feminists in the modern world. So much material to draw on! The book addresses some of the key questions of our times, and its 50+ chapters have titles including:
– Are you a misogynist if you only hate radical feminists?
– Why do feminists deny the different natures of men and women?
– Are some feminists (e.g. Tracey Emin) a pain in the arts?
– How does feminism cut short some men’s and women’s lives?
– Are feminists less intelligent than normal women?
– Does Harriet Harman suffer from Mad Cow Disease?
– Are feminists less attractive than normal women?
– Is the pope a Catholic? Do bears crap in woords? Are feminists delusional?
Best wishes,
Mike Buchanan