Saturday, 26 May 2018

When its facts versus feminism at the Guardian it's down the memory hole with the truth

The one thing that you can rely on The Guardian to be is inconsistent. On Britain's recent Royal Wedding they published one article celebrating Meghan Markle for being brown skinned and another  late last year criticising her for not being brown enough. Would it not be better to abide by Martin Luther King's exhortation to judge people by the content of their character rather than their skin colour? But then I would say that being a privileged white male of impeccable character.

There was more predictable lunacy recently in the Guardian, from Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, who wrote an article praising the historian Dan Snow because he lied to his children by telling them that there were female spitfire pilots in the RAF during World War Two. Miss Cosslett thinks it's a wonderful idea to lie to children about history if it doesn't mirror the past the way she thinks it should have been. The article was published in The Guardian's opinion section whose motto at the top of the page ironically reads, "comment is free...but facts are sacred." Maybe the Guardian allows its feminist journalists living in the most gender equal countries in the world, with successful careers in one of the hardest industries to gain entry, to disavow the sacredness of facts to compensate for the oppressive patriarchy they live under?

This desire to erase facts from the past to promote a particular political narrative is also a hallmark of totalitarian states. It is also reminiscent of the memory hole in Orwell's dystopian novel '1984', where facts are erased from history if they don't adhere to the approved political narrative of the state.
However, the worst aspect of this article is that both Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Dan Snow are belittling the fact that British women contributed significantly to the war effort by working as nurses, in munitions factories and at the forefront of agriculture in charge of running farms across Britain. The implication of Miss Cosslett's article is that female farmers, nurses and factory workers are somehow less valuable members of society than male fighter pilots.  If anything it is Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Dan Snow who are the ones being sexist.

 If Miss Cosslett viewed these women as equally important contributors to the war effort then she wouldn't have been able to write her whinging article for the Guardian. I suspect though that if your living depends on you finding sexism everywhere then the chances are you will.

This modern obsession with fifty fifty gender representations is imbued with a degree of class snobbishness which is why the debate is only ever limited to middle and upper middle class roles. You will never hear a feminist arguing for gender parity in traditional working class jobs done by either men or women. I challenge anyone to find me a feminist campaigning for more female refuse collectors or fifty fifty gender quotas for warehouse assistants or supermarket cashiers. This whole gender imbalance debate makes no allowances for the fact that gender disparities in various employment sectors (many that favour women) continue to occur as a result of the choices that men and women freely make in western countries which have high levels of equality of opportunity between the sexes. In fact, Norway, which is one of the most gender equal states in the world, has found that when you give men and women complete equality of opportunity they tend to gravitate, on average, towards traditionally male or traditionally female jobs, as evidenced in the brilliant documentary, "The Gender Equality Paradox", that I have attached below. It is full of the kinds of facts that in the vernacular of the post modernist left people like Dan Snow and Rhiannon Lucy Scott would find 'problematic.'

 Why do so many people still harbour the delusion that equality means men and women have to be the same? Surely, true gender equality should celebrate the differences between the sexes and proportion equal value to the roles both play in society.


  1. Yes. For most people, it seems as if there appear to be only two choices: to assert that men and women should always adhere to traditional gender roles, or to assert that there must be equal representation of men and women, at least in selected desirable professions. Both assertions are complete nonsense: men and women should take whatever roles they are qualified for and want to, and nobody should obsess about unequal numbers unless they are caused by clear discrimination.

  2. Because it's all about money. All feminist campaigns inevitably lead to demanding ways to appropriate men's money either directly or via the state, everything else is noise. So they concentrate on where the money is and don't bother with FGM or female emancipation in genuine patriarchal countries or equality in working class jobs, there's just no money in it.

  3. The Guardian's new motto should be: "Comment is free... But facts are scary!"