The BBC, the most potent weapon in the hands of the femocracy, is at it again with 100 Women. We hear the drone of predictable platitudes about how women can change the world in a month or a week or whatever it takes.

And indeed they are changing the world. They are destroying our families, our ways of political representation, they are robbing us of our health, happiness and children and they are making things much, much worse.

Feminism is rotting the warp and weft of society and feminism must be fought.

I could just do battle with the slogans.

No, diversity is not necessarily a blessing in the workplace – actually it can be a bit of a curse. And when it does help, this is the diversity of different perspectives, and different abilities; not a difference of sex.



When women go on about harassment, what they really mean is imposing a feminised culture on the workplace. They should find out more about male horseplay and how men treated each other before the wimmin came along.

And what better evidence is there that there is nothing sexist about ‘mansplaining’ than the fact that men ‘mansplain’ to each other?

And while I am a great supporter of workplace flexibility, no research on the costs appears to have ever been done.

Feminists present their case as if it were a gift to everyone. In fact even elite women are disadvantaged by the constant pressure to perform in the workplace. The feminist agenda has been set in perpetual motion. They are like hamsters who don’t know how to jump off the wheel.

But I am tired of pointing out the gaping flaws in the feminist agenda. It gives me infinitely more pleasure to set out an agenda of my own. Here goes.

Core to the PSHE curriculum for older girls in secondary school should be information about the dramatic decline in female fertility as we women age. Girls should be encouraged to think about whether they might ever want to have children and if so, they need to build this into their plans. This might mean choosing employment which combines easily with childcare, or delaying their career till a little bit later. And rather than seeking sexual gratification, they might put their focus on finding a young man who shares the same goals.

We need to hear more from women who enjoyed time at home with their children and then went on to build a career or simply went back to work.

If a mother, or father, stays at home for a few years to look after the children, such efforts could be recognised by having tuition fee debts significantly reduced. This could be part of a package of educational or training incentives to help those who have taken time out of the labour market to look after their children to get back into work.

And those who are prepared to devote themselves single-mindedly to the workplace should be rewarded for this. Even if they are mainly men.

While age has a dramatic and negative effect on female fertility, the possibility of bringing wisdom, skills and dedication to employment is likely to improve with age. Ageism rather than sexism should be the focus of our attentions and this would fit in well not just with mothers who wanted to have their children and then their careers but with the need for all of us to spend longer in work.

We desperately need to recognise that mothers want to spend more time with their children. If we ignore this we are going to be stuck in a place where mothers have no choice but be forced into the workplace with breasts full of milk and cravings for the child so recently in their belly, while their husband stays at home and looks after the baby. Compared with a slightly lower status in the workplace, this is a far greater abuse of human rights.
And the abuse will have been created by feminists who doggedly deprive men of education and force women into work.

Men should also be enabled to spend more time with their children. But it is rates of single parenthood and the break-up of families which I suspect has the most dramatic impact on the amount of time fathers spend with their families. We know that male employment has a significant impact on partnership formation, so if we want to bring men back into looking after their children what we actually need to do is increase particularly young men’s access to work.

Beyond this I would be in favour of restrictions on working hours. The demands which workplaces make on family time can be extremely unfair.

Marriage! While the well-off still flock to get married, it is a dying institution among the less privileged who would benefit the most. Those below a certain income level should get a chunk of money towards the cost of a wedding. I would suggest £500. When it comes to local housing lists, a marriage certificate provided by those who have children could lead to a significant increase in housing points. Such steps would provide a little incentive to less well-off couples to formalise their relationship.

Finally, we as women must get together and fight this feminist cancer which has so effectively invaded every social institution. This does not just mean declaring our antipathy to feminism. It should also mean making it clear that we do not need, or want, special privileges in the workplace. That when it comes to harassment we women can protect each other, and if anybody bothers us we are not fragile flowers but can give as good as we get. And we should make it absolutely clear that we don’t have to be the same as men to be absolutely equal. We are equal. What the feminists really seem to have forgotten is that men are equal to us.