Women in “own worst enemy” shocker…

It’s tiresome, I know, and I try to avoid it, but this morning I stumbled across Caitlin Moran’s column in The Times.

Apparently women are scared of men.


It’s a catalogue of woes that, on the surface, she makes sound plausible, validated by the classic statistic that…



It’s helpful to Moran that ‘s not traditional for newspaper opinion columnists to cite the sources backing up their statements, but if ever an assertion in a column demanded a “citation needed” sticker, it’s this one.

What is the source of her statistic? What is the basis of it.. e.g. the definition of sexual assault used?

You need only Google “1 in 5 myth” so see what she is most likely referring to. This is the oft-repeated statistic that “One in 5 [US] college students will be sexually assaulted”.

This trope has become so widely propagated that it’s become something that may be repeated whenever convenient, shorn of all context, qualifiers and supporting evidence.

You can see it debunked here, here, here, here and here

The point is this: Moran and her feminist ilk have built careers on attracting readers by the use of such eye-catching, sensationalist statistics. If women didn’t have something to be upset and angry about, why would they buy her books about what they should do about it? And yet now she complains that women are scared of men. I would suggest that if there is a reason women are scared of men it is because they have been force-fed these fallacious factoids by esteemed writers, such that they have internalised this grotesquely exaggerated likelihood of being victim of a terrible and intimate crime.

That is, woman have been terrified by feminists into being afraid of men, on a false basis, and now the feminists are here to offer the answers to he problems they have created themselves.

Women lose, and men lose, but feminists flog more books, get more hits on YouTube and win more writing commissions from leading newspapers. And this is why feminists can fuck off.

I won’t even dignify her second complaint – the gender pay gap – with a response because I’ve written about it before, and you can also see that myth also debunked in some of the links above.

Frankly, I’d cancel our subscription to The Times, on the basis of Moran’s pernicious dribblings (amongst other complaints I have about that ‘organ’), but it’s the OH’s subscription, so it’s not my decision to make. Which is fine.



Syria Later…

There’s much ‘hoo’ and plentiful ‘hah’ at the moment regarding the question of Syrian refugees.

The obvious and morally correct answer to the question “should Britain take some of these migrants in?” is yes, of course we bloody should.

Nevertheless, the kneejerk response of “no, enough is enough, they can sod off” needs to be understood and respected, if for no other reason that you can’t persuade those of that opinion if you don’t understand where they’re coming from.

For 15 years or more, the immigration situation in the UK has been a disaster. Open borders across Europe have led millions of people to our shores both from within the EU and without. And why would they not want to come here? Who would remain in France when the far more generous, prosperous and free UK is just a step away?

The problems with immigration have been manifold. First there’s the problem of the “wrong kind of immigrants” i.e. unskilled EU people coming to the UK, secondly there’s the problem of the UK being prevented from deporting those who are not welcome here (not that this has stopped various home secs from denying work visas to “wrongspeakers” time after time), and thirdly there’s been the political use of immigration by the left to “rub our noses in it” and to gerrymander the voting system. Thankfully, that last wheeze has blown up in their face as working class voters abandoned Labour in protest.

Then there are the localised problems caused when immigrant communities cluster in a particular area – Aldershot is a case study in this respect, since a whole Ghurka community has sprung up there. In what was previously a white working class community, resources have not been expanded to cope with any sort of influx, and they are stretched to breaking point – schools, NHS, transport and housing all come under immense pressure, and you have to sympathise with the indigenous population who feel that they’ve been let down and squeezed out by PC politicians looking to curry favour with immigrant communities.

I don’t blame these people for saying “no more”.

And so the politicians and talking heads say “yes, of course we should let them in”, knowing damned well “they” are not being let into Primrose Hill, Godalming or Sevenoaks. It is the relatively disenfranchised lower classes who will experience further pressure on their local amenities.

So, if we are to let people in – and we should, but judiciously and conditionally – the politicians need to accept the fact that there are consequences and costs. I’m not just talking about any welfare entitlements new arrivals may avail themselves of. I mean all of the knock-on consequences for places in schools, hospitals, GP registers, housing and other infrastructure. Also the opportunity cost of increased competition for low skilled workers that may see an aggregate increase in indigenous people on benefits and looking for meaningful employment.

There also needs to be acknowledgement of some of the other fundamental domestic problems that have given rise to frustrations.

The cost of housing is insane – a combination of loose monetary policy and tight planning restrictions have kicked ever more people off the housing ladder, while enriching those who were fortunate enough to get on it before the millennium and stay on it.

The folly of the minimum and living wages also needs to be acknowledged and understood, however counter-intuitive the truth of the matter seems to be.

But here’s another thought.. why don’t we usher all these Syrians onto a P&O ocean liner and send them all to America? After all, it is ISIS that the Syrians are understandably fleeing from, and ISIS are the child of America’s insane foreign policy.

So at the bottom line, if people of the UK are reticent to accept even more immigration, don’t point at them and scream “waycism”, point at the politicians whose warmongering, short-termism and self-interest have created the climate in which anyone feels the need to say “NO”.


%d bloggers like this: