-Mein fuhrer tenemos el apoyo de un grupo nuevo …
-¿Como se denominan?-
A bunch of feminazis are campaigning to get Philip Davies MP sacked for saying in a speech that “feminist zealots really do want have their cake and eat it.”
As stories go this is right up there with: “Pope demands apology for outrageous ‘He’s a Catholic’ claim” and “Bears in furious denial of ‘sub-arboreal defecation’ slur.”
But the Guardian and the Guardian-reading bully mob clearly think that this is an issue of momentous significance because they’ve published a story titled “Pressure mounts on PM to respond to Philip Davies’ feminist zealots’ comments.”
Though I’ve read it half a dozen times now, I still can’t for the life of me what Davies has done wrong.
Is it his suggestion that feminists are zealots? If so, QED I’d say: their wild over-reaction proves his point more eloquently than anything Davies could have said in a speech.
If on the other hand, it’s the part about wanting to “have their cake and eat it” that’s made them turn all psycho, well what the speech shows is that Davies has taken considerable care to back up his point with concrete examples from real life.
“I don’t believe there’s an issue between men and women. The problem is being stirred up by those who can be described as militant feminists and the politically correct males who pander to this nonsense.
“It seems to me that this has led to an ‘equality but only when it suits’ agenda that applies to women. The drive for women to have so-called equality on all the things that suit the politically correct agenda but not other things that don’t is of increasing concern to me.
“For example, we hear plenty about increasing the numbers of women on company boards and female representation in parliament; however, there’s a deafening silence when it comes to increasing the number of men who have custody of their children or who have careers as midwives. In fact, generally there seems to be a deafening silence on all the benefits women have compared to men.”
Davies, in other words, is the victim of the same witch hunt hysteria that did for Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Tim Hunt and Saatchi chairman Kevin Roberts. (Except in this case, it’s the witches themselves who are doing the hunting and generating the hysteria).
What’s particularly terrifying about these vindictive SJW harpies’ tactics – known as “Point and shriek” and “Isolate and swarm” – is that for the victim the truth is no defence.
Sir Tim Hunt said nothing wrong, has an impeccable track record of encouraging women scientists and was simply making a mildly clumsy joke; Kevin Roberts was making an honest comment, borne of years in the advertising industry, about the differing attitudes to ambition among male and female employees; Philip Davies was making an unexceptionable, empirically demonstrable observation on the way society’s pendulum appears to have swung excessively in favour of women.
But as so often with a certain kind of woolly-headed woman who hasn’t had a proper shag in a very long time, it isn’t the truth of what is being said that is the problem; rather it’s the burning sense of grievance which must be assuaged at any cost.
In medieval times, society took a robustly pragmatic approach to dealing with the kind of cry-bully harridans currently shrieking for poor Philip Davies’s testicles: trial by ducking stool. If the screeching hag floated, then she was clearly a witch and had to be burned at the stake; if she drowned then she was probably innocent.
Perhaps, if the eye of newt and toe of frog crew at places like the Fawcett Society and the Everyday Sexism stopped to think for a moment, they’d realise that this was exactly the kind of rough justice they are now seeking to impose on men.
Then again, to understand this point would require a reasonable sense of proportion and logic, and possibly a hint of a sense of humour.
So no go on that front, eh?