Friday, 2 July 2010

23 Reasons for repealing the Sex Discrimination Act 1975

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-sex-discrimination-act-1975-1/idea-view

because women

  1. have too much power
  2. are always asking for more state handouts
  3. want to mother everything, no matter how useless and costly, because it feeds their sense of self-important and purpose
  4. are the people who are stopping the rest of us from getting lower taxes and lighter regulation, because our male politicians take orders from these people who make up the membership of MUMSNET and listeners of WOMAN'S HOUR. (Notice how they are always whingeing,  asking for more state handouts, and more nannying health and safety legislation.  Can you imagine a man asking for smoking to be banned?)
  5. who are single mothers are parasitical on the taxpayer when they have no husband to provide for them
  6. are in thrall to feminism - an evil unnatural ideology that requires you to pretend that both sexes are capable of doing the same work with equal competence and effectiveness, when they are  clearly not
  7. are mostly more irrational than men
  8. are more censorious than men
  9. are less likely to forgive than men because they are the weaker sex and their feelings are more easily hurt, ie they are more vindictive
  10. and their feminine vices have started to infect men.  (Remember when David Milliband said he was "offended" by  the behaviour of Iran when he was Foreign Secretary?  Why does he imagine for a moment that the Iranians or anyone cares about his feelings?  He was talking like a girl and thinking like one too.)
  11. are the ones who want more nannying health and safety regulations
  12. are the ones who want to be bailed out when they have messed up their lives because they got knocked up by some low-life loser they didn't say no to
  13. are not very good at using contraception or deliberately get pregnant to trap the man or the taxpayer into paying for her and her child or children
  14. are interfering
  15. should do what they are best at and leave the thinking to men or rational women who want greater liberty, fewer laws and lower taxes
  16. are the reds on (rather than under) your bed
  17. are naturally parasitical, as well as cowardly and hypocritical
  18. exercising matriarchal degeneracy will lead to terminal matriarchal dementia
  19. matriarchal dementia leads to civilisational extinction
  20. are only too good at exercising power without responsibility
  21. are corrupted by the power they do not deserve to have
  22. have emasculated men and forced them to ape the manners and morals of those who have conquered them
  23. with too much power are bad for themselves, men, children and the next generation

23 comments:

Leos Tomicek said...

Number 10 is typical. They like lecturing anyone. I have heard numerous times, when I raised objections against the Afghan war, that the Taliban discriminated against women. So I guess in their logic we have to fight a pointless war for the sake of Afghan women.

WTF?

If they honestly think that women in Afghanistan will be 'freed' by intervention, they should stop dreaming. The NATO forces are incapable of even eradicating the drug production there, how able would they be dealing with centuries old cultural traditions?

Anonymous said...

Hilarious, the internet is full of self promoting useless commentators who know little about the crap they peddle. Thank goodness that noone is paid good money for this. Claire I understood you were a woman so why would you wish for laws that would penalise you? I guess the worst kind of woman hater is your kind.
Pointless trying to educate you or Leos.

C.L.Villiers

Claire Khaw said...

What are the laws I propose which would penalise me? List them, please, C L Villiers.

Anonymous said...

You wish to repeal the sex discrimination act and so you wish to be discriminated against. Or is this yet another mindless proposal of yours with no thought of the consequences?

CLV.

Leos Tomicek said...

@ Villier's

If it's pointless, why even bother with us?

Claire Khaw said...

CLV, I am a libertarian and in favour of freedom of contract. If I want it for myself, I must give it to others.

What a shame most people don't realise that all anti-discrimination legislation is *thoughtcrime*.

Claire Khaw said...

CLV, being a libertarian, I am against all totalitarian anti-discrimination thoughtcrime legislation, which I believe is an evil imposition against the principle of freedom of contract.

What do you think is going to happen anyway?

Employers will just give the job to people they think is the best person for the job.

Anonymous said...

What a waste of time repealing the law then if nothing happens as a consequence. Your arguments do not flow and meet anywhere. You want no Nanny state with nanny state ideals. Sex discrimination is not thought crime. It's the act of discrimination, the evidence of discrimination can only be seen in action.

CLV.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to be an already educated and established woman hating women and being anti feminist, afte rall if the feminists hadn't altered the society in which you live you wouldn't have a voice loud enough or articulate enough to be heard.

Perhaps you should be thanking the feminists for allowing you to spout these ideas.

Sonja Buyers.

Claire Khaw said...

There were universities for women before the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and also freedom of expression.

Anonymous said...

I'm talking about feminism, Claire, not your silly repeal ideas. You are an anti feminist, which if you take it back far enough would leave you without a vote.

Claire Khaw said...

Let me make this quite clear: I would not disenfranchise women because they are women. Any citizen who pays a minimum of tax ought to have the vote.

Most women, probably because they are happy not to vote, and because they won't be paying taxes because they are wives and mothers, will in practice not vote.

The awful truth is that women aren't much interested in politics and use the fact that they are women to excuse their political ignorance and apathy.

Indeed, I know a female friend who did exactly that. "I am girl," she said, "what do you expect?"

Women and men are not equally good at doing certain things.

Only the unnatural and truth-denying ideology of feminism would wish to make an issue out of this biological fact.

Leos Tomicek said...

@ Sonja Buyers

If you love women you should join ranks with us, libertarians and anti-feminists. Feminism also hurt women.

Speaking of your vision of the past where women were not articulate and essentially voiceless. This is a myth, pick up any 19th century novel written by a woman.

Anonymous said...

You seem to mix with many stupid people.

And by 'voice' I don't simply mean the odd author, woman of wealth, I am speaking of a general and blanket right to be heard. Educating women, giving then property rights....


So obtuse.

Claire Khaw said...

You should check out my Facebook friends list.

Anonymous said...

I have. 'Friends' is a very loose term. Most things on facebook about you are negative, in fact two groups have existed that can't stand you. Apparently you invite politicians, who never refuse anyone, fake celebrities and stupid people to be your friends. And then there are people who become your 'friend' to oppose you.

I failed to spot anyone 'on your side' and clever.

Claire Khaw said...

A lot of my Facebook friends are my detractors. As you say, a lot of them are very stupid.

Claire Khaw said...

"You want no Nanny state with nanny state ideals."

How so?

"Sex discrimination is not thought crime. It's the act of discrimination, the evidence of discrimination can only be seen in action."

We are forbidden to act on our opinions.

Discrimination requires thought, does it not?

Leos Tomicek said...

Woman of wealth?

You must be kidding. What about the vast numbers of men of no wealth? Did they have a voice?

Anonymous said...

Leos, it's a certainty (or you and this Khaw women wouldn't bother writing) that things have changed much more for women than men, with or without wealth. Hence FEMINISM.

Claire Khaw said...

What an illogical statement. If things have changed for women then they will have changed correspondingly for men too. Women's empowerment comes at the price of men's emasculation.

Do you really want to live in a society that wastes men's talents and confines them to uselessness, criminality and unemployment?

It would appear that feminism is the ideology that is happy to squander the lives and talents of men and ruthlessly sacrifice the quality of the next generation so women can have the freedom to work, which most don't want anyway. That is why it is both stupid and evil.

Leos Tomicek said...

Indeed we are a species of two sexes.

Rookh Kshatriya said...

If you take things back to women not having the vote (which hardly matters in a plutocratic oligarchy, anyway) you will find that men without property did not have the vote, either. Feminism is class blind garbage and very much 'on the run'...