On Sophy Ridge on Sunday, Harriet Harman, Queen Bee of Feminism, was asked why she did not run to become leader of the Labour Party.
Harman – whose blood I am sure runs bluestocking blue – said she should have put her name forward after Gordon Brown stood down. She said “at that moment I should have stepped forward and it is a bit of a mystery to me why I didn’t. But I think the world is full of men who are not up to the job pushing themselves forward and loads of women who are up to the job who don’t, and for that moment I was probably one of them.”
Given Harman’s feminism, this is an astonishing admission and I am surprised it has not received more attention. For years the feminists have told us that the reason why there are not more women in positions of leadership, be it political or business, is because they are discriminated against.
We at The Conservative Woman have always said it was mostly out of choice, in other words motivation. In general, more men seek out these positions of leadership than women.
Harman confirms everything we have said, and indeed Goldberg’s theory of Patriarchy.
The reason there are not more women at the top, is because they just don’t want it. In this interview Harriet Harman admits this there are loads of women who do not push for the top job. And the reason for this is because they choose ‘not to put their name forward.’ It is lack of motivation and not discrimination.
Now it is true you can ask the follow up question of what is behind this lack of motivation and I have no doubt the feminists would undermine women even further by saying society brainwashed them into ‘settling.’ So do we think society brainwashed Harriet Harperson into not going for the Labour leadership? Really, is this the feminist position? And what Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May missed the memo? I don’t think so.
I should also add that I am not making a value judgment on women who decide not to go for ‘top leadership positions.’ I know I would not. And in this respect Harman is no slacker. She was in politics for God knows how long and her legacy in destroying the family and fatherhood in particular is assured. I am sure she did some good stuff – like maternity leave or something – I can’t remember. But just let’s be clear; I am not criticising her decision not to go for the leadership.
What I am criticising however is how Harman and the rest of the feminist posse want to destroy businesses by making them over-promote women to achieve not equality but parity. That is what you are doing if you make businesses promote women who in their heart of hearts – just like Harman – just do not want ‘top positions of leadership.’
Harman need not worry though as her legacy to Britain is considerable, considering she invented the new religion in the form of “equality and diversity.” These days you cannot swing a cat before you are told we must do so in the name of equality and diversity.
We have to promote some useless woman to head of the Metropolitan Police in the name of diversity – to hell with efficiency and effectiveness.
Equality and diversity means if it has tits promote it, if it is black put it on a pedestal and if it is gay get out your rainbow flag. Now, if it has tits, is black and is gay all at the same time – well then you have hit the bloody jackpot. Your equality and diversity points will be through the roof if you put that person in a position of leadership.
But I digress. So there we have Queen Harriet – felled by the patriarchy in the end.
(University of Salford)