Daily Telegraph Women’s Editor and broadcaster Emma Barnett appears to be going through a life crisis. Having spent a lifetime focused on high achievement and career, it sounds to me, to use her own words, as if she is ‘struggling to override the most primal instinct of all’.

Asked to give a Ted X talk on women, she concentrated on ambition, but not ambition in the broad sense of a strong desire to achieve something, such as bring up well-balanced children, write a book or overcome feminism, rather on ambition in that far more limited, narrow, career centred, feminist sense.

But what I suspect really troubles Emma is not, as she suggests, other women’s lack of ambition. After all what harm is that going to do her? Rather,I imagine, Emma is starting to question whether her career should be her most important goal in life. For while she may talk about ‘losing custody’ of ambition, we all know that such a loss of custody would not be particularly painful. For ambition is not a child.

In her efforts to convince us that women are ambitious and don’t prioritise families she not only gives the wrong numbers (there were 5000 respondents, not her 25,000) but also quotes highly selectively from a Harvard Business School report.  In fact, if we read it we learn that “Women are more likely than men to leave the paid workforce to care for children, work part-time to care for children and make other kinds of personal and family accommodations, like declining a promotion and choosing a more flexible job”. Over 80 per cent of women saw these behaviours as the chief barriers to women’s advancement. But most significantly is a finding from the Pew Research Centre  that more than 90 per cent of working mothers, who had either reduced their hours or taken a significant  time off from work, say they are glad they did so.

Part of the barrier to fulfilling ambition is, according to Emma, that she, like other women, is engaged in an imitation game. By this she means  she is compelled to emulate the domestic practices of her highly  competent mother – a behaviour often associated with wanting domestic control.

Here Emma appears to be most confused. I would agree that women do tend to want to imitate the domestic practices of their mothers, unless ‘learning outrages’ such as feminism are perpetrated on them. After all women have been engaged in childcare and homemaking for hundreds of thousands of years and it is how we have all survived. But today’s young women usually had mothers who were working and the evidence suggests that the will to imitate them is actually rather weak.

In our own analysis of British Social Attitudes we found among the youngest group of women signs of a gradual swing back to a more traditionalfamily life. Similar findings emerged in Netmums’ research. Almost a fifth of mothers under 30 surveyed agreed with the statement that ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ compared with only 6 per cent of counterparts over the age of 30. Siobhan Freegard, the Netmums founder concluded: “I think personally that young mums now look at my generation, the “have-it-all” generation, and think you lot look knackered and it doesn’t look like having it all is that great”.  So, yes Emma, we are compelled to imitate our mothers, but only if they behave in a sensible way.

However, perhaps ironically the most ruinous part of Emma’s message is the way in which it damages the goals of feminism itself. For what this focus on ambition really does is toinflate the burden of expectation about what we are supposed to get out of the workplace. It now becomes the source of self-fulfilment and self-realisation, while for men I suspect, the workplace is somewhere they go to work. It is not about themselves.

So far from being as Emma suggests, more ambitious, men may actually be less ambitious and it could be this that gives them the tolerance to put up with ‘unfulfilling roles’, the patience to ignore ‘dim prospects for career advancement’, and the lower expectations which ultimately give them the plodding power, which means that they are more likely to excel at work.

Emma at the tender age of 30 seems keen to tell women what to do but with her limited life experience I think it should be the other way round. Listen up Emma. You quote author Alice Walker: “The most common way in which people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any”.

Well a greedy cabal of women have been telling gullible young women like you precisely this for over 50 years.  And these young women have been handing over their power to support this feminist cause.

Emma, reclaim your power. Abandon your self-limiting cage of ambition. Have as many children as you want and channel your brilliant creative energy into your wonderful little brood. Challenge your assumptions and expectations, surprise yourself and others, and when you have lived a little then come back and tell us what to do. For only then, Emma, will you have been the author of your own life.


  1. She describes herself as “loud, feisty and childless”. Fairly typical of feminists, fairly atypical of the general population of women. Yet she presumes to speak on behalf of all women, without ever considering the possibility that she may be atypical. She goes on to quote a survey of Harvard Business School graduates without it ever occurring to her that they too might be atypical.

    I have no desire to stand in the way of feisty feminists working their way towards such career glories as getting articles published in the press, complete with professional photography, but why do they consider themselves at the same time to be typical of everybody else?

    This self-centered view of the world is exposed in her description of the boardroom battles: “They might dislike her for daring to put her head above the parapet and, believe me, they do.”. This is not purely a feminist issue. It usually takes me a good two years to establish myself at a new employer, and at my current employer (with a lot of people that have worked for the same company for twenty years) it took a phenomenal 7 years! During that time it is always difficult to stick your head above the parapet, and indeed one new guy that told management “they were doing everything wrong” got fired on the spot!

    She also mentions that men with “traditional home set-ups” are more likely to be sexist than men that have working wives. Except that she also states that hardly any women are stay-at-home housewives. So is it relevant? Presumably not? And what of it anyway? There are as many opinions as there are people. Some of those opinions can be a challenge. What is she planning to do about it? Brainwash everybody? Or is she just whinging for the sake of it? She claims they are not breaking the law by passing women over for promotion – but actually they are, so why not use some of the raw ambition to remove these obstacles to promotion by getting that obstacle fired? Maybe not ambitious enough….

    She mentions Rosie, a woman apparently held back by sexist attitudes to promotion. Rosie could have demonstrated her raw ambition by moving to a company that had less sexist attitudes to promotion. Rosie couldn’t be bothered. Perhaps “Can’t be bothered” is actually what is holding women like Rosie back, rather than sexist attitudes in that company?

    Finally she witters on about some woman in a two -income household that is too poor to train to become a personal trainer. The whole thing was frankly unbelievable and I think she just plain made it up (I think she may have made up Rosie as well – that’s the joy of anecdotal evidence after all, stories can be created at will). Frankly, if you want the chores shared then marry someone that agrees to share the chores. If you allow yourself to be drawn into a relationship where you don’t get anything like what you want from it, you are only holding yourself back – it’s nobody else’s fault but your own.

    As far as I can see, all these loud, feisty, ambitious women have got the jobs they always wanted. Maybe they didn’t get them straight off, but who does? If there was a mass of loud feisty, ambitious women claiming they couldn’t get the jobs they wanted I might think there is a problem, but the only women sounding off about all this are the ones that are already where they want to be. Of course, some cynical people might be rude enough to suggest it was there loud feisty feminism that forced their employers to promote them beyond their abilities to avoid an expensive law-suit (racism and sexism being the only forms of unfair dismissal that attract significant compensation), but I wouldn’t dream of suggesting such a thing….

  2. The really funny thing about people like this is that they seem such a messed up ball of stress about it all. If you look at men, we know that we’re just pottering about at work (mostly), which is probably why the archetypal man has hobbies. We get ridiculously passionate about football, or we go fishing, or do anything that counts as diversion or passions. We even collect seemingly pointless things – anything from stamps, coins or comics to football programmes – a completely mad habit that we are afflicted with as a sex. I’m a rabid “completer” in collections, I really have to take care what I get into as it can cost me a lot of time and money if bitten. My wife looks on with a kind of amused, bemused indulgence.

    Women don’t tend to do all this. I wonder is this because they are just a bit more responsible and serious than us, because evolution demanded that of them – being in charge of and making such a big commitment to the next generation requires that, after all.

    So when it comes to work most guys treat it as the thing it’s there for – putting some food on the table – whereas the girls seem to get all self-fulfilmenty about it.

    • I was thinking about this woman’s narrow view of what constitutes “ambition” and something occurred to me along the lines of what you have just mentioned.

      I was never ambitious for promotion at work. I got promoted to being an engineering manager at one time but all I ended up doing was sorting out personnel disputes and doing the other half of everbody else’s paperwork. I am ambitious as an engineer, but not for promotion. I want to be a bloody good engineer, not a manager of other bloody good engineers.

      Your mention of hobbies really nails it. I know a lot of men not ambitious at work that are very ambitious when it comes to their hobbies. Motor racing for example. Women can have competitive hobbies too, but generally their spare time is focussed on the more creative.

      I think what people choose to do with their own time and money is more revealing of their underlying nature than what they do when someone is paying them to do it.

      • I think this focus on what people choose to do is a much better guide. I’m sure there are people devoted to a career of itself. However experience and statistics suggest the majority have “jobs”. Of course all this is quite a change from most of human history, where subsistence was the main job. Many men, including myself, start to climb the greasy poll of management prompted by the additional financial need following the birth of their child. Now my brood are grown I am in the fortunate position to now plan an early retirement and intend to work again “hands on”.
        I really do think Belinda is spot on with her observations on the dogged nature of men in work. Essential really as there is really only social sanction for choice in type of job for men, not in choosing to have a job. Rationally men will have a long and pretty uninterrupted work life consequently pacing it makes sense. When asked hypothetically in surveys men appear not much less likely to express a wish to work less, particularly parents, than women. Yet we know the longest/hardest working are fathers. The most tiresome part of the decades of debate on these topics is a sort of British refusal to talk about money. As if people generally work for the joy of it, if true no one would need to be paid!

      • Start working at home>>CLICK NEXT TAB FOR MORE INFO AND HELP

    • In my opinion women do have their equivalent to male hobbies & sport fanaticism. Women tend to be “relationship spotters”; they can be just as obsessive about identifying the different stages of their own and others’ relationships. Dating/engagements/marriage/children/arguments/divorce/death are all endlessly fascinating to a lot of women. If their own social lives aren’t interesting enough they can supplement them with soap operas and the social lives of celebrities.

        • You and me both, along with 95% of the rest of the male species, I’m sure. 🙂

          Maybe I should have called them “social anoraks” instead of “relationship spotters”, but it is pretty obvious to me that men use the same part of their brain for collecting useless facts about whatever their hobby/interest is. I’d guess that there is a good evolutionary advantage for a society where women obsess about relationships and men obsess about some strange niche aspect of the world outside society.

          • I think it’s because they’re more caring and lovely than us, and I’m not joking.
            I really like women – quiet at the back! – they’re just so much more fun to talk to.

      • “Women tend to be “relationship spotters”,
        Not in my experience, none of my friends actually past or present. Sounds like people wth not much else to talk about.

        • But they do love to chat, though, and they also like to spend a lot of time looking at clothes and trying them on without actually buying them.

          These are typical women’s hobbies. I’m not critical of it. They are just choosing to spend their spare time the way that men do, in general. Consequently I presume that most (but not all women) prefer to choose of their own free will to do things differently to men. Thus I would expect men and women to be 100% the same in the workplace.

          Thus I don’t care much for the socialist concept of “equality” – which in reality means burning Cara Delivingne’s face off with a blow-torch to stop her looking so good. I believe in freedom and fairness.

          Freedom so a woman can be a girly girl or a tom boy, Fairness so that we are all treated the same by the criminal justice system, the government and corporations.

          • I am certainly a relationship spotter (as I have already demonstrated). However I hate trying on clothes and only ever buy them online.

          • Well far be it from me to stereotype you Laura. I’m only making a sweeping generalisation about the average woman – the ones for which the Westfield Shopping Centre was designed. But may I say you look very elegant in the picture you use on Disqus, even if you did buy that dress online.

    • I liked the comment she made at the end where she pointed out the narrow window during which women have the opportunity to find themselves a good man and have a baby, and how so many women don’t take this seriously enough and miss out on the opportunity, all thanks to feminism. My sisters made that mistake – not married, childless and likely within the next ten years parentless as well. Blood is very definitely thicker than water. Once you find yourself without any close blood relations, just who do you have you can really rely on? I’m glad I’m not in their shoes.

      • Women who aren’t interested in the short term culture or haven’t been ‘lucky’ in who they met, probably end up out of it altogether, but we all have friends and most create a small network whether married or not. Marriage or having children is really no guarantee of either, the latter eventually grow up, move on (sometimes emigrate),and hopefully marry themselves.

        • I didn’t understand your first sentence.

          The second sentence is just silly. People don’t have children in the expectation that at 18 they will leave home never to be seen again. If that happens something went badly wrong with your parenting. I’d be horrified if my own kids behaved like that towards either me or my ex-wife. I expect to see my kids at least once a month and keep an eye on me in my old age, just as I do for my own parents. Yes, sometimes it turns out bad and parents can end up heartbroken as a result – but at least they tried. They, like the ones that never had kids, will grow old watching first their parents and then their peer group dying off around them, one by one. Pretty morbid and depressing if you ask me – is it any wonder that grandparents become so obsessive about seeing their grand-children.

        • Feminist_Failure wrote:

          What gives you the right dictate to women when we should have children?

          Have them whenever you wish. However, I’ll wager that without a man your chances are slim, and after your menopause non existent.

  3. While some brash feminists made no secret of their aims to destroy marriage, most understood that Feminism had to put on a patina of “tolerance” for marriage while working to undermine it under the table. That’s precisely what has happened, as laws governing marriage and child support have become so biased against men, a man has to be blind and naive to agree to such a thing.

    As a result, younger generations of men are avoiding marriage, probably for life. And young women, flying high on the feminist propaganda, think they can wait indefinitely to wed and have babies.

    There’s going to be a lot of disappointed women in the future, but I can’t say I feel too bad. If future generations of women, pining for marriage and family, are left bereft I’m going to do what I can to tell them how bad Feminism screwed them.

    • Last year family was was altered to make it ‘child’ rather than either parent centric anyway. Not all men want children, in fact I’d guess quite a large percentage aren’t bothered one way or another, and would be happy to settle down with a women who prefers a career, and is happy to share chores. (If you don’t have children, the child support issue becomes a non issue, and if you want to alter that later in life, you can always adopt).

      • It’s certainly possible to get married without having children, and in the unlikely chance I ever got married, it would have to be with a woman who wanted to remain childless. but many people get married for the primary purpose of having children and raising them in a stable environment. Also, not only is the father disadvantaged by the current laws, but the primary wage-earner is as well. Most women, high-achieving or not, still desire to marry a man who makes more money than them, making the man vulnerable in an eventual divorce whether or not they ever had kids.

      • “Not all men want children, in fact I’d guess quite a large percentage aren’t bothered one way or another”

        Careful. Most men aren’t that bothered with the idea of starting a family. They see it as a trade of between the benefits of a traditional nuclear family and lots of cheap holidays off-season and a two-seater sports car. However, the majority of men are fully 100% behind the idea once parenthood become a matter of fact, and this is rational given the amount of time effort and money that needs to be invested in raising a family.

      • Hi Mex,

        Forgive me for using your comment to “go off on one”:

        “Parent centric,” you see how easy that phrase drops in? The Social liberal experiment involves the replacement of the family by the state and one of the ways it does this is by taking over the words we use to describe things. Key words and phrases have to be excised, biological and psychological differences erased. Autonomy and privacy are encroached upon by a state with promises of wellbeing, choices, protection and rights.

        “Last year family was altered to make it ‘child’ rather than either parent centric anyway.”

        Was it, by whom, with what mandate, I do not recall the referendum or the manifesto. Reducing families to “child centric” in order to negate the differences between father and mothers is perilous. Families are a series mutual multi generational obligations: “blood is thicker than water”. For the majority of the
        planet families are extended. My family has multiple branches including foster
        relatives, step relatives, half brothers and sisters, blood relatives.

        Recently I attended the funeral of a distant cousin and sat in a adapted Methodist church, in an ex colliery town, surround by 200 people many of whom were direct and indirect relatives. I was completely moved and enriched by the experience and I saw my own physical appearance in the faces of so many of those present, as I watched my Father weep giving the eulogy. My family spans the midlands, Scotland, Jamaica, London, Lincoln, Lancashire, everywhere.

        Children are of course central to most families whether you have children or not. But children grow up to excise their obligations to return the love freely given. Families are children centric, elder centric, parent, centric, sibling centric. Overall, and with setbacks and breaks up’s and remarriages the family is by far the most important component of our society and the most neglected, abused and defamed by the liberal experiment.

        If we just for a moment stop rationalizing the break up and breakdown of relationships and families and for a fleeting moment just saw how important, imperfect and instinctual families are we might see what is being gradually removed from us in the name of progress. Various relationships
        can of course still go wrong, indeed that is what a healthy wider family is
        about through richer, through poorer in sickness and in health, through conflict
        and estrangement and reconciliation..

    • MGTOWs are a joke amongst all the women and real men I know. I don’t want to sound harsh, but in the real world MGTOWs are seen as inadequate (get my drift?) “losers” who can’t get a girlfriend.

      Real men are feminist allies and are self-confident enough to go out with strong, assertive women.

      I’m sure the right girl (or boy) will come along for you, although I’d advise you to have a more respectful attitude towards women first. Today’s young women know what we want and we won’t settle for second-rate men any more.

      • I will consult a woman on how to be a man the same day I consult Bill Clinton for advice on how to be true to marriage vows.

      • Well that just sounds fantastic. All the feminazis have little catamites to keep them company in their old age.

        So we’re all happy. I’m living with a hot asian with big fake boobs and you’re living with your very own mangina. Perfect. There’s somebody for everybody. I love liberty. I’m not sure you should be speaking on behalf of all women though – you sound a bit atypical….

      • Oh dear, really showed your true colours here.

        MGTOWs (joke, inadequate, losers) and of course, “real men”…hmm I rather think that first part of your name “Feminist” seems to be a bit of a failure.

        Men… going out with …women; you clearly can’t see the future either. It is not going to happen, your future is to evermore be on your own.

        You advise to be more respectful but I can’t see that in your post. May I assist you with that?

        “Young women don’t know who they are anymore and today men won’t settle for a second-rate mind. In fact men won’t settle, period. Not for you, not any longer. You all really are going to be on your own.”

        There, that’s clear now.

      • You’ve shown often here that you are a long way behind the times so it’s no surprise, Feminst_Failure / Fabian_Delusions / Insane_Kate, that you can’t see the point of MGTOW, and won’t. ‘It’ not being about you, that doesn’t invalidate MGTOW, or support your less than virile attempts at shaming language.

        Don’t your cats need feeding?

  4. Reclaiming power, is really about understanding who we are as individuals, and following that path rather than finding oneself pursuaded to do something that only , makes somebody else happy, whatever that might be. Homemakers assuming everybody wants or is able to have babies, is just as assumptive and destructive as feminists who insist everyone should be working full time regardless. What makes relationships work is about knowing who we are, what we want, and choosing a spouse with compatible needs and values, and which might just include a spouse we find eventually is unable to have children.

    The issue is really the availability of well paid equally valued part time work, on a par with the Netherlands system which allows a man or woman to take a day off on parental leave but unpaid, to support family, and has the largest amount of part time work in Europe taken up by both men and women. It’s no wonder then the the Netherlands have the happiest children in Europe, with both parents able to work manageable hours conducive to family life. In that respect it is possible to ‘have it all”, and both spouses can achieve that.

    I have memories as a youngster of sitting up in my bedroom window, looking down the road, late into the evening, waiting for my dad to come home from work. My mum was a homemaker, but we rarely saw my dad when we were very young, he was on the ’60 hour week to make ends meet’ bandwagon, and since I have two siblings and he was on an ordinary income, that lasted a long while. Stressed up he’d had two heart attacks by the time he was 60. Great model? I don’t think so.

    • It would be great if we could all work part-time. In fact, many GPs do, which is why I now have to book an appointment a week in advance. Fact is we have to work. I live in the country so I don’t have these daft notions that work is somehow an intolerable burden on all of us placed there by an uncaring elite. Fact is the local farmer that gets up every morning to collect the cows and take them to the cowshed is the guy that put milk in my fridge.

      We all have to work. There’s a lot to be done. The entire country needs rebuilding for a start.

      I’m not impressed by subjective comments like “Happiest children” – that’s just a lovely simple way of giving the impression that the report’s authors are onto the right thing with whatever blah blah it was they were trying to say. If I try and quantify it in some way I found that the suicide rate in the Netherlands is somewhat higher than in the UK – so those kids might start happy but end up less happy as adults (overindulged maybe as children and then can’t cope with the real world perhaps? I dunno – but then neither does anybody else).

      • What’s the difference between a man working a 60 hour week to keep a woman at home who doesn’t work, and a man and woman each working a 30 hour week to achieve the same thing providing they have equal access to well paid work on equal terms (qualifications, experience)?. Nothing, each work a 4 day week, and can be at home with children for 2 of them, there’s a lifestyle balance, more choice. The Dutch ensure a lifestyle balance by offering an unpaid leave day, basically a four day week default, but it’s a choice which not everybody has to take – but it’s available if they do. How many hours people ‘have’ to work is controlled by cost of living and renting.

        The Unicef research report I referred to is based on how children rate their own lifestyles and compares a number of countries across Europe.

        Suicide in the Netherlands fell substantally during the eighties plateaued from the early nineties to 2007 and has been rising since 2007. Northern European countries tend to have higher suicide rates than the south; suicide rates have been rising substantially in the Netherlands like Greece since 2007 (global slow down, economic & debt?). One in eight Dutch people have non Western origin, which might also influence figures.

        Eight out of ten older cohabiting Dutch say they would like a ‘partnership agreement’.


          • It means, more choice, (eg students could work part time and do a degree part-time), some people could mix some poorly paying creative persuits like playing music with working part time in better money making education or business. Less pressure on men to ‘perform as sole providers’, two in work together reduces the risk of unemployment and loss of income which would otherwise be the mans responsibility. Better work/ life balance, more home time, happier kids. Part time could mean older people wiht a paid for home, but being forced to work to 67 would still be able to release part of their job to a younger person if they chose to.

            Downside – a think tank would have to refer to the experience of Netherlands introducing this, potential loss of tax revenue if part time means below personal tax threshold, so part-time needs to be mixed with a business and wealth generating economy. Business has to be able to plan around the ‘special parenting or otherwise one day off’, but from the perspective of employing older people, in a developing business there’s less risk involved in employing a part-timer ie requires less turnover to guarantee a part time income. The cost of training more people maybe, but training is often software based these days. It’s really a topic to be pulled apart by a ‘think tank’.

          • Well the problem is Mex that as you went up the income scale you would find people working fewer and fewer hours (because they could afford to). That is one of the problems we have at the moment, because highly skilled people are disincentivised from working due to the high levels of taxation on high income and the possibility of avoiding tax by paying large sums into pensions n retiring early.

            Fact is we can’t afford highly skilled people working short hours. There aren’t enough braincells to go round. At the bottom end of the scale, if people don’t put in the hours it is difficult to justify why the skilled have to support them.

            So, whilst it seems attractive to only work say three days a week and then take the other 4 days off, we’d probably sink faster than France did after it introduced the 35 hour week.

          • You’re wasting your time, she won’t get it, principally because women don’t want what they cant have, by which I mean that she won’t get it because she can’t.

      • Maybe if men helped with the housework more instead of expecting their female partners to do everything as if they still lived in the 1950s, women would have more time to have both a career and children.

        • Feminist_Failure wrote:

          Maybe if men helped with the housework more …

          What housework? My mother often complained that my father and I and my brothers didn’t do our share of the housework (my brothers and I younger than ten when she was at her most hysterical) but the housework we didn’t do was not housework we thought needed to be done. What my mother complained of was our failure to do the housework she thought necessary, although she never turned a spade or a fork in the garden, washed and serviced the car, replaced a leaking tap washer, refitted the kitchen with hand made units – not shop bought – nor travelled over a thousand miles per week to do a hard and demanding skilled job. She made a mess of almost everything she did in the home, inclusing cooking and laundry, and it never seemed to occur to her that while she was not our slave we were not hers. Regardless of what we were doing, and our youth, her only thought was that we were not doing what she thought our share of her work.

          I made it clear to my wife that if she wanted something ironed or cleaned or washed it was her job to do it, not mine. Neither of us cooks, cleans, washes, or does any domestic work if we do not wish to, and certainly not because the other thinks we should.

          Sing another song, and one with a less monotonous tune and original lyrics.

    • Deep down, I suspect many men would rather women went back to being Fifties housewives again.

      Tough luck, boys.

      • Oh no, I was thinking more like Audrey Bitoni. Careful though, she’s not “work safe”

        You have a lot to learn about men F_F

      • Feminist_Failure wrote:

        Tough luck, boys.

        There is the all too obvious mark of the immature teenager cutting off her nose to spite her face about almost everything you write Kate. ‘Care in the Community’ has certainly done you no good at all.

        ‘Tough luck, boys’ might have some force were it actually tough luck for boys. As it is, ‘boys’ are turning their backs on women and couldn’t care less. Do you practise this stuff in front of a mirror or simply call it up from your long ago learned repertoire of irrational femthink in those deranged moments between mad misandrous dreams and the cold hard light of another insane gynocentric day?

    • Indeed Mez. There are all sorts of observations that could be made from the considerable variety in Europe. There is a good deal of data and evidence of the success or failure of a variety of policy initiatives. One thing I find particularly perplexing is the fall from grace of the Netherlands and Germany (showing my age “west” Germany) as often quoted exemplars by feminists. I can’t see why they are so completely ignored now.

    • Do part time employment in Britain & get vilified for offering poor jobs.

      Offer them to women and you’re responsible for a gender pay gap.

      Basically, I couldn’t care less. If everyone is equal then let them demonstrate it by getting on with it without looking for my help.

    • I was self-employed when my daughter was young and one of her great pleasures was to be read to sleep by me, and one of mine was to do it. However, I was self-employed and if I didn’t work we didn’t eat, and risked being homeless, which, in answer to her enquiries why I had to go to work, and come home after she was asleep, often for a fortnight or longer at a time, I had more than once to explain to her. I suffered disappointments in that and many other areas at least as often as she yet I did not feel myself hard done by because I was working for myself and ‘flexi-working’ or ‘part-time hours’ or ‘job sharing’, or any other cosy, leftist / feminist term for someone else having to give you what you think is your entitlement – simply because you’ve been told so – while you make a slave of yourself for the state or the corporation you work for, didn’t enter my head.

      Your problem is, Mez, that real self-sufficiency is beyond your ability so, because you cannot accept that, you take comfort in the self-serving deceit that you might if only others played their part as you see it. That is never going to happen. If you can’t hack it, no amount of artificially created ‘well paid equally valued part time work’ can help you.

  5. Jez We Can!

    Jeremy Corbyn is a Feminist.

    He will ensure at least 50% of the Shadow Cabinet are women.

    He will ensure at least 50% of Labour MPs are women.

    • There’s about 21 cabinet members and with Liz Kendall, Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper excluded – exactly who are these 11 female cabinet members going to be I wonder? Diane Abbot must be top of the list from what I’ve heard….

      I think we can safely say that Corbyn won’t be PM then….

      • Phil wrote:

        I think we can safely say that Corbyn won’t be PM then‘.

        I’m not so sure. I suspect that he could be Pre or Post Menstrual. Don’t write him off just yet. My money is on Corbyn being Pre or Post Menstrual well before 2020.

  6. As women increasingly out-earn their male partners, more and more men are becoming househusbands for financial reasons.

    Women are winning the battle of the sexes – and men are failing to adjust to this new order.

    Read this article:


    “The Hawkins family — sane, functional, rooted in a midwestern state known for family values — offers a convincing vision of what America is becoming. We are entering an era where women, not men, will become the top earners in households. We are entering the era in which roles will flip, as resoundingly as they have done in this family. You laugh, but that Big Flip is just around the corner.

    The six Hawkings siblings grew up in a traditional, male-breadwinning household. Their father worked in the auto industry back when men without a college education could support a family on a single income. “In one generation, there’s been a complete flip,” says Mundy. Today, three of the Hawkings siblings are in marriages in which the woman is the primary earner. Two others are in female-breadwinning households. Only one brother is the primary earner in his marriage.”

    • Feminist_Failure, aka Fabian_Delusions, wrote:

      Women are winning the battle of the sexes – and men are failing to adjust to this new order.

      Notwithstanding that ‘the battle of the sexes’ has only just begun (wait until we men really get started to see how unpleasant battle can be), your statement that men are ‘failing to adjust’ is an explicit admission of your own failure to understand that men, and women, are capable of independent thought and action and are not obliged to accept anything, which, if I’m not mistaken, was the foundation of feminism. How ironic that women who refused to accept the staus quo then prevailing now cannot, or refuse to, see that others can oppose them for the same reason. Men are rejecting ‘the new order’ not ‘failing to adjust’. Have you ever seen the film Cool Hand Luke? If so, the phrase ‘a failure to communicate’ might ring a bell.

      Feminist_Failure, aka Fabian_Delusions, quoted:

      We are entering an era where women, not men, will become the top earners in households.

      Since women, not men, are the top spenders in householders, it’s about time that women stepped up and pulled their weight. Few men object to that in this age of equality.

      What was the point of your gynocentric indulgence Kate? Very few men give a damn whether they or their wives earn the bread, just as long as it is earned, and spent sensibly (perhaps that is why the very new crime of ‘Domestic Abuse’ includes ‘controlling behaviour’ and ‘denying a woman money’) and those growing numbers of men who are turning their backs on women have the wit and skill to earn for themselves, and the ability to live on a lot less than a woman.

      Get in touch with your masculine side, sweetie, and start thinking rationally.

    • So, the feminists’ fight against patriarchy, declaring it to be a hegemony of men, and, therefore inimical to equality for women, is actually about reversing that, placing women in a position of social power and rendering men unequal. You are the finest advocate for the anti-feminist cause we could hope for, frankly. Thank you for making the deceit and the lies so abundantly clear.

    • Come on Men – Man up and become corporate slaves. Don’t you see women are getting ahead of you in corporate rat race.

      Heh…Men should’nt buy into that. Live the life you want. Feminism has freed us from protector-provider role. Don’t go back to the plantation.

Comments are closed.