Listen people, I am going to keep this quick because I don’t really care about what happens to Labour. But I will say this. The reason that Labour is in such a mess is because of its all-wimmin shortlists.
The all-wimmin shortlist phenomenon has meant that women have been selected in some constituencies over men, who may have been more competent and most certainly wanted it more.
In the political bible The Thick of It Malcolm Tucker, exasperated by Nicola Murray, the leader of the Opposition, and her lack of drive and ambition to crush the opponents pins her down in her office and asks her does she really want power?
He shouts at her: You have to really want it. You have to be hungry for power; you have to be as hungry as Hutu with a big machete hacking through an opposition with a belt full of hands and necklace full of ears. Can you wear a necklace made of ears? It was not accident that it was man shouting at a women.
Labour has been taken over by the feminists and in the madness did what feminists do best – take out all their frustrations on men. In some cases, they have banned men, actually banned them, for that is what an all-wimmin shortlist is, from running for election. So a woman takes a place of a man. This was silly because it meant that the party lacks the ‘killers’ necessary to keep the show on the road. They do not have enough men willing to wear anecklace full of ears.
People ask why are there more men in Parliament. I’ll tell you why. Men dominate not because they are necessarily more competent but because men have a serious biological drive to dominate and prove themselves in the public sphere. It is both a sign of strength and insecurity.
This drive to dominate means they are more motivated to succeed. Women on the other hand are less motivated to dominate the public sphere, in particular if they have children. They have less time and energy to do so – their motivation to dominate competes with their motivation to nurture. It is not discrimination that ‘holds women back’. It is motivation.
Please note, crazy feminists, that I am not making a moral judgment here.
Feminists also often complain that Parliament is ‘testosterone-fuelled and macho’ as if this happens by accident – like the cleaners just spray some testosterone around the place every morning. Parliament is macho and testosterone-fuelled because men dominate it, and men dominate it because they are full of testosterone! That is what drives them there in the first place. And if they weren’t there they would be in the City, or the army or somewhere else in the public sphere. This does not rule women out – it just means there will be fewer women in Parliament than there are men.
Now, crucially, this does not mean men will be physically aggressive. They will do whatever it takes to dominate the public sphere – to essentially prove themselves in the public sphere because they are unable to dominate the private sphere, which is, or at least was, run by women.
If this means killing the other tribe, they’ll do it. If this means kissing babies for votes, men will do it. If this means promoting inadequate wimmin over more competent men they’ll do it. In fact this last point kills two birds with the one stone – kill your stronger enemy and have a fawning woman in his place. You do not personally pay the price for her incompetence – the public does. You only pay that price when the public realise they are paying the price for appointing her and throw you out.
The other way you pay the price is when you have created all-wimmin shortlists and have too many unmotivated wimmin in your party. Now you have tipped the balance, which needs to be corrected by an all out fight, or perhaps a split.
Angela Eagle is now running for the Labour leadership. It will be interesting to see if she has it in her to go hacking through her own party and come out wearing Jeremy Corbyn’s ears as a necklace. It promises to be one heck of a fight.
