Don Johnson

One of the patterns of contemporary politics is that whatever silliness happens in the US arrives on British shores a short time later. Identity politics was born in the corridors of liberal American academia from which it spread first to the political mainstream and then corporations, probably via the HR department. Now we have the likes of David Lammy ranting about white supremacists on a daily basis and British companies leaping on the Pride Month bandwagon and droning on about their trans employees.

The last few days have shown the British left have adopted something else American: mass hysteria as a method of political persuasion. Donald Trump had been a household name for 25 years when he ran for president, and as such there wasn’t much about him which remained unknown. But as soon as he declared himself a Republican the left branded him a hard-right rapist and when he got elected went into a collective meltdown that’s showing no signs of abating. It’s been almost 3 years and they still haven’t got over the fact Hillary lost and a good chunk of the country doesn’t mind Trump. The Democrats have assembled a collection of lunatics to run against him in 2020 on a platform of white people paying black people reparations for slavery, the idea that Trump is literally running concentration camps, and open borders. Good luck with that.

As befitting the pattern, the British left have now gone into hysteria over Boris Johnson who looks set to become the next prime minister. Johnson is very much a known quantity: he has been a public figure in politics for two decades and was mayor of London for two terms between 2008-16. But the left now want us to believe he’s some sort of dangerous, far-right extremist who goes around assaulting women. The latter claim – which they’ve clearly borrowed from their American counterparts’ campaigns against Trump and Brett Kavanaugh – is based on a couple of lefty neighbours of Boris’ girlfriend having skulked around on the landing outside her door, made a recording of a row they were having, and sent it to the police “fearing for her safety”. When the police turned up and said nothing was amiss, the couple sent the recording to The Guardian. And so overnight Boris Johnson becomes an abuser of women, helped along by the self-appointed spokespeople of the Metropolitan chattering classes such as The Secret Barrister:

It is quite clear that Cleverly is taking issue with the couple sending the recording to The Guardian, not reporting to the police what they might have thought was domestic violence. But a barrister’s job is to obfuscate on behalf of their client, which in this case is the mass of hand-wringing Metropolitan liberals for whom she works full time pro bono (less book sales). She is quick to point out that there is nothing illegal about recording your neighbours’ arguments and sending a copy to the police, but issues dark warnings about anyone harassing the couple who have inserted themselves into the middle of this national story of their own volition. Meanwhile, the left is now going after Boris’ girlfriend Carrie Symonds, who didn’t do anything to bring this situation about. The hard left are now camped outside her door, a tactic they’ve learned from Antifa who turned up at Tucker Carlson’s house and sent his wife into hiding. So what does The Secret Barrister have to say about this blatant targeting and harassment of an innocent individual? Nothing, of course. And what do Britain’s feminists have to say? Again, nothing: women are only deemed worthy of privacy, protection from threats, and respect if their politics align with Laurie Penny’s. Otherwise, they’re fair game for all manner of misogynistic abuse.

The harassment of Symonds takes place a few days after feminists and assorted lefties emerged from a 48-hour tantrum after Conservative MP Mark Field threw some annoying Greenpeace protester out of a place she didn’t belong. Politicians and the media squealed that it was assault and normalising violence against women, and feminists declared women deserve special treatment as they are different from men after all. Predictably, Theresa May capitulated and suspended the minister concerned instead of standing up for him, but in doing so may well have driven more party members to back Boris over anyone else. Now I don’t think Boris is a conservative, nor will he make a good prime minister. He’s proven to lack any consistent ideology, is prone to blundering, and it remains to be seen if he really is the man to take Britain out of the EU.

But there is something of the Trump in him, and he’s bringing that to his leadership campaign. He’s refused to take part in the silly TV debates Sky has put on, he’s refused to talk about what happened in his flat, and people are getting the impression he’s the only candidate who won’t simply fold like a cheap suit every time lefty launches another round of faux outrage. American conservatives elected Trump in large part because he wasn’t prepared to grovel and apologise to those who hate them, and instead stood up to them in a way which drove them insane. Now the British left have adopted American political tactics, it’s perhaps not surprising the right are willing to back whichever candidate stands up to them, his politics and character be damned. I suspect the squawking over Mark Field followed immediately by the cynical use of “domestic violence” and the staggering hypocrisy over Carrie Symonds will backfire badly, and Boris will sail into No. 10 with a Trump-like immunity hanging over him. Personally, I hope he keeps making remarks which send the left into an apoplectic rage, and then doubles down and refuses to apologise. So long as he keeps doing that he’ll have my support, and I suspect that of many others.

Share

Dutch Coven

We’re going to be seeing a lot more of this:

A Dutch engineering university is taking radical action to increase its share of female academics by opening job vacancies to women only.

Starting on 1 July, the Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE) in the Netherlands will not allow men to apply for permanent academic jobs for the first 6 months of the recruitment process under a new fellowship program.

Thus implying that women are only able to secure employment if men are excluded. Hurrah for female empowerment!

“We have been talking about [gender balance] for ages,” says TUE President Robert-Jan Smits. “All kinds of soft measures are taken and lip service is paid to it.

So why have you not resigned and handed your post to a woman? I’ve written about such people before:

At every step of their career they would have sandbagged and outmaneuvered anyone who represented competition, be they white, brown, yellow, male, or female. When they were middle managers somewhere eyeing their next promotion they weren’t harping on about the need for greater representation or increased diversity. No, they were promoting themselves. But now the top job is securely under their belt and retirement on the horizon, they want other people to sacrifice their career ambitions on the altar of diversity politics.

Back to the article:

Currently, 29% of TUE’s assistant professors are women; at the associate and full professor level, about 15% are women. With this program, TUE wants to reach 50% of women for assistant and associate professors, and 35% for full professors.

Is this a result of discrimination of the free choice of women? If both, what difference is down to discrimination alone? They don’t care of course, and are instead pushing for equality of outcome. As Jordan Peterson is fond of saying, this will not lead to a happy place.

The plan was announced today and is already attracting controversy. “People say it’s illegal; they say we will lower standards. That’s a load of baloney,” Smits says. Some critics say the program discriminates against men. “Yes, absolutely,” Smits says. “For years, men have been discriminating against women, and women haven’t been paid the same as men for the same jobs.”

So the way to atone for Smits’ generation discriminating against women is to start discriminating against the current generation of men? This is an idea so stupid it could only come from an academic.

Dutch and EU laws allow policies to recruit underrepresented groups, TUE says.

Of course they do: they are the result of special interests lobbying for greater power and privileges, and have nothing to do with equality.

[Biologist Isabelle Vernos] worries TUE’s program could place a burden on female recruits, who may face suspicion about their abilities and anger about the process.

Well, yes. Any woman who could have got the job in a fair competition against male applicants will be dismissed as a token diversity hire. This is why any competent, self-respecting female academic should avoid this institution like the plague.

The program is named after Irène Joliot-Curie, the daughter of Marie Skłodowska-Curie, who received a joint Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1935.

I feel irony is somewhat wasted on the administrators at TUE.

Share

Social Womengineering

In the comments under my last post, David Thompson remarks:

But apparently, it’s more important to have women “in every role,” at “fifty percent,” because people mustn’t “see policing as primarily a male-dominated job.”

When it comes to gender equality we are rapidly abandoning equality of opportunity in favour of equality of outcomes, the latter of which can only result in a deeply unhappy and dysfunctional society. Here’s another example:

By 2028, Qantas hopes 40 percent of its pilot intakes are female – a move that comes after Virgin Australia exceeded its goal of having at least 50 percent of its pilot cadet intakes female in 2018.

And another (H/T Ken):

Goldman Sachs wants half of the next intake of its junior recruitment programme to be women, and will hold its managers responsible for promoting more minorities to managing director as part of a new diversity push.

If men aren’t taking note of this direction of travel and preparing to do something about it, things aren’t going to turn out well for them – nor anyone else.

Share

Toxic Femininity

This article (which was removed from Medium) may have some flaws, but I think it raises some very interesting questions as to the effects the modern psychiatric industry has on American schoolboys. While the article is focused on school shooters, this passage suggests the problem is widespread:

In 1975 Autism was diagnosed in children at a rate of 1 in every 5,000. Today that number has soared to nearly 1 in 100. This has ignited a public controversy over the source or cause of what by every definition deserves to be called an public health epidemic. 75% of children diagnosed with Autism today are boys. There’s no need to go searching for a cause. Vaccines aren’t behind the explosion in Autism rates. Teachers and school psychologists are. School psychology today is a booming industry, one which the US Department of Labor identifies as having some of the best employment opportunities across the entire field of psychology. 75% of school psychologists are women, with an average age of 46. It is this same group of people most empowered to conduct psychological monitoring of children across the country, and over the last 30 years, they have come to classify a larger and larger percentage of young boys as having developmental issues, to the point where it’s not clear whether there is anything wrong with these children at all, or if school psychologists have simply written off a wider and wider range of behaviors which they find problematic or incomprehensible as constituting autism.

How many future school shooters are they creating by middle-aged female psychologists pigeon-holing young boys displaying ordinary boisterous behaviour as problem children, then pumping them full of mind-altering drugs? How many previous school shooters were already on these drugs at some point in their lives? Little wonder the subsequent “masculinity” sometimes turns out rather toxic.

(Via Ben Sixsmith)

Share

Gender Pay Flap

A reader sends me a link to this video of members of Australia’s gender equality extortion racket being questioned by a senator on their data collection practices. Have a look for yourselves:

I don’t object to female politicians. What I object to is bureaucracies stuffed with spectacularly thick or intellectually dishonest individuals (of either sex) tasked with pushing hardcore feminist agendas on the rest of the population. At some point, which I concede might be long into the future, people are going to openly state that feminising government was a bad idea. Probably when picking through the ashes of whatever is left of our civilisation.

Share

Strangers in a strange land

There’s an article in the BBC lamenting that the whole world is designed for men and, having succeeded in their demands to access every workplace in the land, women are finding they’ve not been tailored to suit them.

From police stab vests that don’t account for breasts, to safety goggles too large for women’s faces, to boots that don’t fit women’s feet, Ms Criado Perez says the list is endless.

This reminds me of the oft-heard complaint that there are not enough female film directors, in response to which Tim Almond among others likes to ask: “So what’s stopping them?” The complaint isn’t so much that women are being prevented from making films, it’s that Hollywood studios aren’t handing directing duties on blockbuster films to women. Which isn’t the same thing.

Similarly, what’s stopping a bunch of entrepreneurial women spotting this giant gap in the market for women’s stab vests and safety goggles and touting their wares around every organisation (meaning, all of them) which boasts about their gender diversity? Surely the management would welcome them with open arms and submit an order tout de suite, if only to stem the flood of complaints being submitted to HR. But no, the demand is that people already out there doing stuff should consider their needs more. The individual female employees who’ve been forced to use unsuitable kit have a genuine complaint, but when it’s presented by the BBC as an example of widespread patriarchal indifference it sounds like a bored wife complaining her husband is inconsiderate and doesn’t notice her enough.

Democratic Congresswoman Niki Tsongas at the time called out the military’s unresponsiveness to the needs of female service members, citing the “alarming” disadvantages for women, including being unable to properly fire a weapon, Military.com reported.

Yes, there are women in the US military who can’t fire a weapon properly. We shouldn’t be surprised by this. Of course, the implication here is the weapon should be redesigned to suit women, or women given a different weapon, which would be interesting in a war to say the least. I bet none of this was discussed during the debates over whether women should be allowed to serve in the first place.

From apps to the actual size, there are a number of design features that have made some women say smartphones have been designed with only men in mind.

Women’s hands are, on average, around an inch smaller than men’s – which can make the industry’s ever-increasing screen sizes problematic to use.

Texting one-handed on a 4.7-inch (12cm) or bigger iPhone can be difficult to impossible for many women (and small-handed men).

So they can buy the smaller-sized phone, can’t they? Or do they want the version with the big screen but an option to defy physics during text messaging operations?

“The comprehensive health app on the iPhone that didn’t have a period tracker; the way Siri could find a Viagra supplier but not an abortion provider – that’s what happens when you don’t include women in the decision making process,” Ms Criado Perez says.

Apparently if women are included in the decision-making process they’ll equate aborting a fetus with buying viagra. Could that be the reason why they’re not? And as Tim Almond would say, “Why can’t they build their own abortion app?” It can’t be that hard. What I expect is lacking is demand; how many women really want to arrange their abortions using Siri?

The formula for standard US office temperatures was developed in the 1960s, based on the metabolic rate of an average 40-year-old man weighing 154 pounds (70kg).

A 2015 study published in the journal Nature found that a female metabolic rate can be up to 35% lower than the male rate used in those calculations – which amounts to, on average, a five degree temperature preference difference.

Of course, this has nothing to do with men being required to wear suits in the office while women get to wear nice dresses showing lots of skin. But again, this is an example of women demanding access to workplaces and then complaining about everything once they get there. The old dinosaur patriarchs said that women wouldn’t like it, and it would make them miserable, didn’t they? The logical answer is staring us in the face, especially in the MeToo era: segregated workplaces. Is that what they want? Seems like it, doesn’t it?

“But it makes me so angry to think of all these women, living their lives, thinking there’s something wrong with them – that they’re too small or don’t fit or whatever it is.”

“It’s just that we haven’t built anything for women.”

The irony is that this is genuinely proof of how gender equality programs have failed, but not in the way she thinks. This is not the 1980s; women have occupied senior positions in every department of every large organisation for more than a decade now, so this “we” she’s referring to is as much women as men. But the power-skirts haven’t done anything about these practical issues women face, because power-skirts rarely get involved in practical issues. The actual design, manufacture, and supply of useful goods and services appears to still be done by men, while the power-skirts do…well, what exactly? HR departments are dominated by feminists holding seminars on sexual harassment and celebrating International Women’s Day but they’ve not even made sure their female employees have got the right kit. There’s a term for this sort of thing: abject failure.

Share

Spiritual Alignment

The other day I was talking to a friend about how the homepages of corporate websites tell you very little about what the organisation actually does, instead displaying some woolly guff which could mean anything. To demonstrate this I looked at two random companies, having no idea what their websites looked like in advance. Here’s KPMG’s:

Here’s Accenture’s:

I didn’t bother looking at any others. Whereas a corporate homepage might not tell you much about what the company does, it leaves you in no doubt as to what they are selling. As I’m fond of pointing out, the academic research is very much ambivalent as to whether gender diversity results in better corporate performance, which means they’re doing it purely for ideological reasons and lying about it. Then again, McKinsey’s commissioned a non-academic study to show that gender equality makes firms more profitable, but I also hear Daz washes whiter than any other powder.

Share

Insecurity Theatre

Commenter Widmerpool makes a point regarding the Kiwi headscarf campaign which I ought to have done:

Bunch of kids playing dress up to make themselves feel better.

I’ve written about this before, of course:

An awful lot of what passes for women’s politics these days is just a big game of dress-up.

David Moore posts a link to this picture:

And this morning on Twitter:


That’s all it is, isn’t it? A big game of dress up. I’ve pretty much abandoned hope of any adults – of either sex – turning up to put a stop to it.

Share

Mixed Martial Arts

I’ve written before about how some modern women, probably empowered by sassy, go-gurrrrrll feminism and watching too many films, seem to think physically assaulting men is a good idea. Here’s another example:


Note that everyone only got outraged when he picked her up and dumped her on the floor. Until then, it was all a bit of a lark. However, you slap a man in the face like that and he’s likely to lose control in some way; this young lad is actually pretty restrained, and did just enough to neutralise his crazy classmate. You can see for a brief second where instinct takes over and he draws his fist back ready to knock her head clean off her shoulders, before he understands the consequences and relaxes. She was fortunate. A man in this state – especially a young, fit one – is a dangerous beast which is why it’s best not to provoke them like this. Men know this. Women used to know it instinctively, but modern society appears to have absolved them of simple common sense. They now seem to think they can go around physically attacking men with no consequences. Whether it’s feminists to blame for this mindset or someone else, there will be some women who pay a real and permanent price for it.

Share

Canada Goof

I think anyone who’s spent time on social media knows that men who describe themselves as feminists and spend half their time white-knighting and virtue-signalling to women are the sort you’d want nowhere near your daughters.

Last summer Canada’s manchild of a Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood accused of groping women:

The self-described feminist, who has said he has “no tolerance” for sexual harassment, said he did not recall the event.

“I remember that day in Creston well. It was an Avalanche Foundation event to support avalanche safety. I had a good day that day. I don’t remember any negative interactions that day at all,” he said, nodding and smiling to reporters.

But on Thursday, he told reporters that he apologized to the woman in question “in the moment,” although he also said he is confident he “did not act inappropriately.”

Now it’s likely the allegations were invented by a deranged lunatic, but what’s interesting is how quick Trudeau was to dismiss them given he spends half his time blathering on about gender issues. As is common with male feminists who chant “believe all women”, he carved out an exception for himself. However, Trudeau is now in a lot more trouble in part due to his treatment of another woman:

Mr Trudeau has been accused of pressuring his former attorney general to cut a deal with a company facing corruption charges – and retaliating when she refused to play ball.

The revelations could cost Trudeau the October general election, some pundits say.

The former AG, Jody Wilson-Raybould, says Trudeau and his staff spent months trying to convince her that taking the company to trial would cost Canadians jobs, and their party votes.

She also says she was subject to “veiled threats”, which she believes were made good when she was shuffled out of her department.

Now another minister, Jane Philpott, has quit saying it was “untenable” for her to continue due to “serious concerns” raised by the case.

So a gurning SJW who’s never missed an opportunity to virtue-signal and polish his feminist credential turns out to be a corrupt, bullying, nasty piece of work especially to women who won’t do as they’re told. Now there’s a surprise, eh?

Share