Saturday, September 30, 2006

Pale Stale Males

The Guardian has done it again. How this newspaper has the nerve to call itself Liberal is beyond me.

In an article about the implications of the new Age Discrimination legislation which comes into force in the UK on 1st October 2006, entitled "New law will let 'dinosaur' bankers sue for millions" it again displayed its deeply entrenched misandry, in its familiar tone of sneering feminist triumphalism.

'Middle-aged male bankers could be among the first to sue their employers using age discrimination legislation that takes effect on Sunday.'

"Until now middle-aged male bankers suspicious that a sideways move or demotion is tantamount to constructive dismissal have tended to shrug and quit."

So the article tacitly admits that men have until now had less power than women and ethnic minorities, and the Grauniad is plainly not happy that this may be about to change.

At first sight it seems surprising that The Guardian is voicing misgivings about anti-discrimination law! This is like The Sun demanding a better deal for paedophiles. But everything becomes clear upon close reading. The Guardian is only concerned about this law because it potentially helps men. If a law helps men to protect their rights, then it must be bad. Men must not be given any kind of due process.

It seems that the first time middle-aged white male workers 'begin to look tired' or 'stale', the Guardian expects them to do the honourable thing and jump from the office window to make room for a member of an officially-sanctioned Victim group. The fact that they might now, for the first time, have some weak legal instrument they can turn to to protect themselves seems to be ruffling feminist feathers.

The irony is that it is still perfectly acceptable, both legally and politically, to discriminate against men, and this new legislation does nothing to address that. You won't be able to discriminate against middle-aged white men for being middle-aged any more, but you can still happily carry on discriminating against them for being male.

"In many respects the law will give white middle-aged men - referred to by personnel departments as "pale, stale males" - the same clout as women and ethnic minorities who allege discrimination."

Men having as much power as women? Outrageous!

What really is outrageous here is the claim that personnel departments are routinely steeped in institutionalised racism and sexism (something I find scarcely plausible in any case), and that moreover The Guardian considers this situation perfectly acceptable! To denigrate a worker for being 'pale' is blatantly racist, and to devalue them for being male is equally unacceptable. If personnel departments referred to black lesbian workers as 'darkie dykes' The Guardian would be the first to beat its chest in horror. Do the same thing to white men, however, and it's funny, or of no interest. Once again we see revealed the blatant, institutionalised double-standards in the so-called political Left. Egalitarian my arse.

The paper helpfully warns the corporate sector: "They must watch out because there is always the opportunist who adds age discrimination to an unfair dismissal claim in the hope that something will stick".

So any discrimination claim made by a white man is automatically unjustified, and simply the product of opportunism. Whereas women and ethnic minorities, presumably, are never opportunistic and any discrimination claim they make is automatically justified. This is tantamount to an admission that such legislation is really an instrument of political agitation, designed to promote a particular kind of positive discrimination agenda, rather than anything else. Otherwise, why object to giving the same legal protection to everyone?

Now rotten to the core with middle-class feminist ideology, the Guardian is nothing more than a crypto-fascist rag which makes its money by massaging the egos of the insufferably smug private-school Left, not one of whom have ever had to suffer a day in their entire lives, and yet who arrogantly presume to set themselves up as the moral conscience of the nation.

I think Alan Rusbridger is starting to look tired. He ought to do the honourable thing and jump.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

I say I say I say

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Two. One to exclaim that the light-bulb has violated the socket, and the other to secretly wish that she was the socket.

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Twelve. One to change it, and eleven to offer moral support.

Q: What's the difference between a feminist and a lesbian?
A: A lesbian can get dates.

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That's. Not. Funny.

Q: Why does it take fifteen feminists to change a lightbulb?