Tuesday, April 16, 2024
HomeReaders CommentsReaders’ round-up

Readers’ round-up


WE’VE selected some of the most pertinent, appreciative and acerbic of our readers’ responses to the TCW blogs of the last few days.

In response to Chris McGovern: Selective comprehensives – the cat is out of the bag,
Peter Evans wrote:

So, making it impossible for bright kids from modest backgrounds to gain an excellent education on the basis of their own merits is socially unjust, but excluding all children from modest backgrounds from obtaining a decent education on the basis of their relative lack of wealth is progressive?

Orwell was unnervingly accurate in his assessment: well-heeled social(ist) justice warriors don’t give a hoot about the working class and the less well-off, much as they pretend to be overflowing with fake compassion and contrived concern for them. They just hate the successful – except when it comes to themselves and their own children.

The cure for social disadvantage isn’t the removal of tried and tested routes out of poverty; it’s the multiplication of these passageways on a huge scale. I’m more and more convinced that the solution lies in providing the parents of able children with vouchers to exchange for places at top schools, cutting out any dependence on local education politburos, teaching unions and cultural Marxist LGBTQIA/feminist/multiculti teacher indoctrination factories altogether.

In response to Laura Perrins: With wimpish Friends like these, no wonder men are getting weaker,

Benthic_aka_dinoflagellate wrote:

You will be accusing us men of watching Sex and the City in a minute.

guestwho2 wrote:

Today’s youth culture is not a wasteland . . . it’s a vacuum resulting from the isolation that inevitably follows from every one of them with head buried in phone seeking fleeting red ‘likes’ like pigeons in Skinner’s lab pecking a button for a food pellet.

All that remains for the social media generation is to sit (they think) in judgment of previous eras, applying their ever more bizarre and Byzantine ‘rules’.

In response to Caroline ffiske: How can women bosses expect funding if they don’t apply for it?,

Dougie wrote:

Do I detect the impending death of feminism? It seems being a woman is not enough any more. You have to be able to lay claim to another reason for victim status to have your voice heard.

lms2 wrote:

‘Why is a Conservative Chief Secretary to the Treasury endorsing this nonsense?’

And that’s the most important sentence in the article, and it could be argued right across the political situation right now. The parliamentary Conservative Party has bought into all this Marxist drivel of identity politics, which the vast majority of the public reject.
It is the same never-ending nonsense spouted by the far-left Democrat party, and should not be even entertained by the Tories. The only people usually taken in by it are university students, being brainwashed by their professors, and the left-wing media which are also trying to push their ideology on to a public which doesn’t want to know.

In a free society, people make their own choices, and in general men and women make different choices. To obtain complete equality of outcome between both sexes, you’d have to use coercion and authoritarianism.

It is also damaging to society, inasmuch as it’s pushing women into the workplace, and too many are sacrificing relationships and having families to do so. The biological clock waits for no woman. It might be great for the economy in the short term, but not good for society if it wants a future in the longer term, and importing millions of people from around the world to fill the gaps is nothing short of national suicide.

In response to Karen Harradine: Will Canada be the battleground between ‘progressives’ and Islam?,

HerewardtheWoke wrote:

Democracy is at its best when political parties are able to hold each other to account. To criticise each other’s policies and proposals, to block, amend and object to each other’s plans, to question methods and motivations.

I can understand why well-meaning fools might want to make criticism of a religion illegal, although I wouldn’t agree with them. But once a religion has crossed into the political sphere, as with the Islamic Party of Ontario, you must allow criticism of that religion. Otherwise that’s the end of democracy and the beginnings of a theocracy.

In response to Gary Oliver: Maggie’s statue – a monument to others’ intolerance,

UKCitizen wrote:

Strange how nobody mentions the absolute chaos of Britain in the 70s or the fact that a lot of this industrial destruction and chaos took place during our early membership of the EU?

Officer Dibble wrote:

But if she was so terrible, why was she re-elected twice, once with an increased majority?

By failing to form a credible opposition, I suspect many socialists project their hatred of their own failure on to Thatcher.

North staffs Dave wrote:

The greatest of them all! I’ll have the statue in my garden if Grantham doesn’t want it.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.