13 Aug 2016

Corbyn Drank Too Much Of The Feminist Kool-Aid

Someone needs to remind Jeremy Corbyn that Labour was founded to be the working man’s party. He seems to be fine denigrating an entire sex just to try and favour another. So much for “equality for all”.
By Jordan Holbrook: Early yesterday evening Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labia Party, put up a Facebook post commenting on a Guardian article detailing the appearance and speech of Philip Davies MP at the International Conference on Men’s Issues.
The post in question (archive here in case it disappears) criticises Philip Davies for making “derogatory sexist comments at a conference held by an openly misogynistic political party”. Sorry Corbyn, but CITATION NEEDED.
He then goes on to threaten Philip Davies and the whole Tory party (in for a penny, in for a pound) claiming they will be held to account by Angela Rayner, Labour’s Shadow Women and Equalities Minister. Corbyn appears to be failing to see any irony in holding the Tory party guilty of sexism yet having a Women and Equalities Minister. Surely it should be just “Equalities Minister” … or do men not count?
He then finishes with a quote from Angela: “He has open contempt for women. His views are so out-dated they are prehistoric. He should have no place in Theresa May’s Tory party. He has a track record for misogyny having consistently voted against legislation that will make our society more gender equal.” Sorry, but did you even watch the video of Philip’s talk? If not, it’s linked here. Check it out.

Attached to the post is a The Guardian article about Philip’s talk. The article is actually titled correctly, “Feminist zealots want women to have their cake and eat it, says Tory MP”, good job The Guardian, you have done well. The article accurately mentions that the speech discussed the skew in the British legal system towards women’s favour and being discriminated against men. In fact, men are 3.4 times more likely to be sent to prison than women (when crimes are similar), they receive substantially longer sentences for the same category of crime and if they were to be treated the same way women are there would be some 70,000 less men in UK prisons. Yet, according to Comrade Corbyn, this is just a derogatory sexist comment.

It’s sexism when it’s against women yet equality when it’s for women.

The article then cites more of Davies’s comments, such as:
I don’t believe there’s an issue between men and women. The problem is being stirred up by those who can be described as militant feminists and the politically correct males who pander to this nonsense
It seems to me that this has led to an ‘equality but only when it suits’ agenda that applies to women. The drive for women to have so-called equality on all the things that suit the politically correct agenda but not other things that don’t is of increasing concern to me…
For example, we hear plenty about increasing the numbers of women on company boards and female representation in parliament; however, there’s a deafening silence when it comes to increasing the number of men who have custody of their children or who have careers as midwives. In fact, generally there seems to be a deafening silence on all the benefits women have compared to men…
A woman must have equality and do whatever she wants, except, when it comes to wearing a prison uniform, obviously.
These quotes are provided, all which raise genuine issues, but in typical Guardian style they completely ignored them. No discussion, no agreement, not even a putrid attempt at a rebuttal. It is with great sadness I must report that I too failed to provide comment because, in perfect Guardian style (yet again), they had closed the comments section by the time I had arrived. Good job, keep the dialogue open. The article was soon followed up with more feminist garbage, but I must warn you, it hurts to read. Especially if you like to see assertions backed up with citations, because the just linked article sure is a-lacking.

Is the Mainstream Media ever going to give up?

But let’s get back to the leader of the opposition. His disastrous post that panders to feminist dogma angered me not just because of its bullshit content but because of its salient arrogance. His vile, blind assertions of misogyny yet his abhorrent failings to recognise the issues men and boys face – 20 of which are on the board behind Philip Davies in the supplied image – betrays his staggeringly feminist bullshit. Is he really that ignorant of his surroundings? Could he not analyse what was in the image presented in front of him? I can only guess.
Thank you Corbyn, we can add this to your list of anti-male, pro-feminist horse-shit. So far we’ve got your defence of Brit Milah, otherwise known as circumcision, otherwise known as GENITAL MUTILATION, otherwise known as CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. I have previously detailed the barbaric similarities between Male Genital Mutilation and Female Genital Mutilation.
There’s also this weird document, which has some potentially good ideas but are so saturated with feminist ideology reading it for its nuggets of “good” elements would be like scooping shit for the corn. Allegedly cuts to public services and welfare drive women and families into poverty, hot damn I’m glad I’m a bloke. My (large, but not uncomfortably so) penis must provide me with some immunity from these cuts. I don’t know how. The rest of the document is, yet again, filled with unsubstantiated claims. I’m noticing a trend here.
So, Corbyn, let me speak to you heart to heart, I think you need to hear it.

You do not represent the working man. You have sold yourself.
You have sold your party. You have sold your identity.

You defend infant male genital mutilation. You peddle feminist wares. You attack those who call out the gender Marxists. You have painted yourself as an enemy of men. Thank you for being a nail in the Labia Party’s coffin and for telling men that they do not matter. I’m glad I’ve never voted for you.

Edited by AA

1 comment:

  1. The language used, the fact that Zio-shill rad-fem Corbyn has no arguments to dismiss the facts exposed by the MHRM makes it blatantly obvious he[they] is[are] on the back foot. Their only 'diplomatic/political' option is to pander to the lowest common denominator, people's instincts/fears, with unsubstantiated lies.

    It's disgusting and I wonder whether the verbiage used might allow grounds to sue him for slander. It would be great publicity and open the issues up for broader public debate.

    How many more important life destroying issues does this broken system paper over, when our bought and paid for key puppet leaders can be directed to brush aside the issues of half the population in such a flippant manner?

    Anarchy in the UK brothers! ...And the women who love us.