will they turn next to domestic violence, to low wages, to poor housing, and their gruesome impact on women, who are, as a class, always at the bottom, a form of human sludge?
Why is this always trotted out. Women are spread out over the class structure of the U.K. They do not form some sort of “sludge” at the bottom. Many are highly privileged.
Point taken that we should focus on those suffering from genuine hardship. But this is some women, and some men, it is not women as a class.
Totally agree. The real underclass are the men living on the streets, most of whom would love to have any form of housing.
Agreed. The entire idea that women in Western countries are “always at the bottom, a form of human sludge” is completely absurd. University-educated women who condemn the patriarchy of England have clearly never seen a real patriarchy. In a real patriarchy, women aren’t allowed to write articles complaining about their lot in life and expect national publication.
“Feminism has long been going from the universal feminism that protects all women to the particular feminism that protects just one”
The author laments this loss of class-solidarity among women, but it is more likely that this evolution is the natural result of feminism’s success in conquering the vast majority of the barriers that made such class solidarity significant in the first place.
“men who usually treat feminism — I mean real feminism — as a dangerous aberration. ** a form of human sludge?”
Quote the whole line – which is more likely about 3rd – 4th wave Feminism where all is postmodernist, intersectionalist; a social pathology and not to do which what sex one is, but some mad genderist hate mongering and social engineering – and Not about a ‘Carrie Nations’ wielding her hatchet for the right of women to enfranchisement.
Boris is merely a spouting popinjay Lothario, a sociopath in search of pleasure and status and power – and now as he has aged is merely a totally Pus* y whipped empty shell, and She Who Must Be Obeyed; a steely eyed Harridan completely captured by the humanist/woke religion, which she wields to keep every one subservient to her ego.
Sick Couple – should be no where near any reigns of power.
Another woman he has ruined? Carrie did a good job of the ruination all by herself. Please let us not think she is blameless.
Since the author brings up looks as pertinent, why is it considered that the First Lady is ‘pretty’? To me she is a dead ringer for Jacinda – just the hair is different. Maybe I am not the best judge of these things.
Speaking as a part Neanderthal I can confirm that she ain’t pretty. Probably the best youngster that a 59 year old porker can pull.
Well some men might be attracted to chipmunk in the same as some women may be attracted to a inverted floor mop….?
“She ain’t pretty, she just looks that way?”
The Northern Pikes
I think she’s pretty. Anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Why would a feminist question whether another woman is “pretty” or not ? Bizarre.
When I was a teenager, my mother was in the habit of (very discreetly!) introducing me to girls that she thought that I would find pretty and that she thought would make excellent daughters-in-law. She was a poor judge of pretty, and so we never got to test her judgement on daughters-in-law.
PS: My mother meant no harm.
That’s what they all say
Is Tanya a feminist?
Not when she sees another woman wearing the qrong colour rosette she isn’t, no.
She’ll be drafting her article on Priti Patel being a false Asian even as we comment.
Seems to be the way with some feminists, either you’re their type of woman/feminist, or they drag you down.
It’s not a good picture of her there though, deliberate or not. She looks a bit red in the face, like she has used a bit too much foundation, or had a lengthy session in the tanning solarium. Given the nature of the somewhat sneering article it wouldn’t surprise me if they actively sought a picture that shows her in something of a less favourable light. I’m not fan of Carrie by the way, but I judge her on her actions, not her looks. I couldn’t care less what she looks like.
In this context,why does it matter if she’s pretty?
Because the author of the article raised it? Thought I was clear in my post.
Oh she’s that women in New Zealand. isn’t she?
Yep, the one and only…
Where were you born, Lesley van Reenen? And when did you arrive in New Zealand?
exactly. she will insist on feeding her babies in the house of commons given half a chance. And she has been given a lot more than half chances.
Agree. It’s the overprivileged women full of the latest woke dad that need to be ignored. Ordinary working women just get on with it all.
I’m not a fan of Tanya’s disparaging and condescending attitudes to the common woman and man, but in this article, she’s really struck a chord. The comment about partying having secured victory over the rival faction is bang on. And the suggestion that Boris is ultimately at fault is sound: one should expect better of the leader of a country than to allow one’s spouse and her team to wield such influence.
Carrie isn’t the first of favourable position to use feminism as a shield, but she’s certainly used her power to greater effect than any other in recent memory. I remain of the opinion that her policies and the actions of her followers result from naivety rather than malevolence. However, it’s Boris who remains accountable for failing to deliver on the mandate he was given by the electorate, which is why he must go.
Speaking as a woman, this idea that any criticism of someone with lady bits is out of bounds and/or sexist, well it’s just ridiculous and insulting frankly. It’s just the latest disingenuous and manipulative way of saying ‘don’t criticise, look away’ after having behaved badly.
Carrie is being criticised for intervening in the business of government, which is to say she is attempting to exercise power without responsibility. All the rest of it is piffle.
— If she wants to wield power in government she should stand for election.
— If Phillip May was doing these we would have been up in arms at that as well, so don’t even try it with the ‘it’s because she has lady parts’ nonsense.
Yes, of course Boris is also to be blamed for allowing it. She is conniving and he is weak. Both things can be true at the same time. I thoroughly agree with you that the reason he should go is not fundamentally because of parties and wallpaper (hypocritical and disgraceful as such behaviour is), but because he has made it clear that he has no intention of honouring his promises to the electorate.
If he can’t be bothered to do the job he was elected for then there is no use for him, and he’s defrauding his voters.
Very well put
I always loved the British terms “piffle” and poffle”. We have words in American English with comparable meaning, but none with the same semantic flair.
There is nothing feminist about a woman whose power is achieved by being someone’s wife. That’s it. Nothing else is required. Saying that attacks on Carrie Johnson are ‘sexist’ is an insult to every single female Tory MP who has achieved her position by electoral success. Many women, even if they did not support her politics or policies, were sickened by the often blatantly sexist attacks on Theresa May. That was unacceptable. This is not.
Totally agree – though that drug dealer/bondage neck chain was a bit strange.
Oh come on. She is ambitious. She used her “prettiness” to secure him. Ruthless and manipulative is how I see her because let’s face it, he’s an ugly, fat, loathesome charlatan. Any “normal” women should be repulsed by him.
And those who aren’t repulsed are abnormal?
Ugly and fat – indeed. But wealth and power have always neutralised ‘loathsome’.
Ah, that give away “should”.
You know that ain’t happening and you can’t say why. Have you ever met him? That may be somewhere to start.
A man supposedly fond of the classics should know the fate of the many Roman imperators destroyed by the intriguing of their wives and mistresses. Johnson is a visionless, whipped cur who is in no position to revitalise our stagnated political culture and increasing economic inequality.
You’ve only got to listen to her speech at the Tory Party conference to see that she is not a feminist. She rabbited on about “transgenderism” and “inclusivity”…whilst men pretending to be women smash all womens’ sporting records, never to be recaptured.
Not a Tory either, methinks
Only other thing I heard at that conference was Boris refusing to choose between Trans and Terfs. Very telling.
Anyone who thinks transwomen are actual women is no feminist. Please don’t conflate her woke silliness with women fighting for their rights.
The feminism of hurt feelings has no truck with me,
And yet Tanya can write an entire opinion piece based on other peoples’ hurt feelings. There are political matters to inform opinions about, but this is just a hit piece.
Tanya’s whole career is built on her own hurt feelings
Spot on AC. Tanya thought bubble – I dont like Carrie Symonds, her husband and Tories. Thats a start but how to hide my prejudice? Oh, I’ll shoe horn in that Ive read 2 books – the one by Lord Ashcroft of Belize and the one one by Tom Bower that allows me to pile on the hapless Stanley Johnson. Then I’ll run all over the place about feminism, no one will have the foggiest what Im on about. Then I can end the piece with a warning that the subject will be hated if something or other happens. That will hide the fact that I hate her already. Pulitzer here we come.
The author may not have noticed, but away from academic theory and the feminist tropes of yesteryear feminism has morphed into a theory of female entitlement.
And when looking for popular representatives, pop stars and prime ministers wives pop to the fore. Why? Because who else is there that modern women can identify with and who still accept the label “feminist”?
Isms are just rackets.
Check TERFs, there’s quite a few of those real feminists. Feminists that are in a brutal fight for our future right now. The feminists have NOT won, unless having rapists housed in female prisons, men winning ‘woman of the year’, men winning women’s olympic medals, is what winning looks like.
‘If Carrie Johnson has too much power, it is because he took it from those who should have it and gave it to her instead. I think his premiership will be destroyed by it and, considering what he has done to the women he has known, it is a mad kind of justice.’
Exactly! What I, a long-standing conservative voter, hate them for is that he has surrendered his judgment and his critical faculty to her. If he was not with her, he would have done what we expected him to do, in part why we voted forhim, namely: he would have opposed the lunatic ideology of transgender activists that of critical race theory. Instead he struts around posturing at the climate summit, making impossible and harmful promises and demands because she tells him to; and he brings in a Bill to destroy our children by adding ‘gender identity to the sensible ban on gay conversion therapy, becsause she tells him to — and so fioth . He is a lost and broken man, and she is the toxic woke activist who has castrated him.
We blame her, but her policies are just establishment boilerplate by this stage. Perhaps he’s just going with the flow of the civil service, the WEF, the UN, the billionaires and the NGOs. That’s what should worry us.
Agree, thank you for your comment.
No ban necessary-violence, coercive practices and intimidation are already illegal. More legislation is not necessary; simply enforcement of present law. LGBTQIXYZ activists are pulling the wool over the citizenry when they conflate converting to the Christian faith, praying in a way they don’t like and Biblical orthodoxy with rape and other abhorrent ‘therapy’. It must of escaped notice but believe me…The church doesn’t do therapy of any nature.
I came here expecting to argue with Tanya and am surprised to say I agree with almost every word.
“Carrie Johnson is a symptom of two things: a failing and empty parliamentary Tory Party and a failing and empty man.”
It is actually quite dangerous, is she a Svengali type? The green zealotry taken on by PM Johnson with such gusto would seem to suggest that. That said, for a couple of decades HMG has been moving in this very wrong – and provably so – direction of zero carbon nonsense.
In times past she would have had several chats with the security services by now but I guess they too are ruined and follow the same agenda.
“From the universal feminism that protects all women”
Feminism was always about upper class women, starting from suffragettes who got votes for that class first, and couldn’t care less for, say, Indian women who continued to be treated as second class citizens.
And interesting that it’s taken for granted that women need to take care of themselves only
The fact that private school educated women working in plush roles in media or civil services, are too feeble to fight for working class men indicates they are not worthy of being deemed equal to men, the central premise of feminism.
A pedant writes, in pompous tones: I take no position on Mrs Johnson’s prettiness, and while I may have views on her role in the political process, I won’t rehearse them here. But she is not a or the “First Lady” – she has no entitlement to the title, in protocol or constitutional terms. To be fair, there is no evidence that she uses or seeks the term. It was rumoured in the heady days of 1997, however, that Alastair Campbell “encouraged” Fleet Street to use the term frequently when referring to Mrs Blair……….
Unheard why are you not following your own guidelines? Quotes from your own policy
This journalist abuses others, with whom she does not agree, using language that is not acceptable
Quote from above ” on women, who are, as a class, always at the bottom, a form of human sludge? Don’t be stupid.” or the other day describing the people of Essex as having ” spurious self confidence”
Is it that journalists regard themselves as a special class who are above following their own guidelines. Sounds like the politicians that they so self righteously condemn
Well there is a balance to be sought. One doesn’t want to read endless vanilla articles.
The full quote (my emphasis):
Having secured Mrs Johnson with their peculiar feminism, will they turn next to domestic violence, to low wages, to poor housing, and their gruesome impact on women, who are, as a class, always at the bottom, a form of human sludge?
She is labelling as stupid the practice in grievance politics of treating their constituents as if they are always on the bottom – a fundamentally offensive viewpoint. No-one is being attacked, harassed, or threatened. The offence that anyone might take at having attention drawn to the offensiveness of their treatment of women seems, to me, to fall outside the scope of the guidelines.
What an unpleasant article, it gives off a whiff of what the author’s mind sounds like. Surely not good for anyone’s mental health.
Whatever Carrie Johnson’s character, attitudes, personality, actions, inactions … they would have been trashed and burned by the media.
And doesn’t the author recognise the utter hypocrisy of her stance?
Currently it is the rabid MSM, fuelled by an excess of their old self righteousness, that are planning an undemocratic coup and the electorate is being brainwashed into servitude.
A bad day for any nation when stupid, self interested journalists wield such power.
Brilliant analysis Tanya. Any person, woman or man who wields so much power must be accountable. Previous PM’s spouses kept quiet (no doubt giving support in private) but Carrie seems unable to hold back. As for using feminism as a shield when you have so much influence it dimishes her and the cause of women’s rights goes backwards.
Wow didn’t expect this from Unherd – could you hold back the witch hunting mob until I dust down my pitchfork and light the burning stake from my medieval well?
I have no idea what influence Carrie wields, because I assume that those who say she has too much either have a grudger with her, or are happy for any stick with which to beat the PM.
As she has no formal mandate to do so, she shouldn’t have any influence, but human nature being what it is, it’s inevitable that she wields some, so it’s a matter of degree. It’s probably unfortunate that she was already political when they got together.
However, the main message I get from this article is how personal and rude it is. The writer clearly doesn’t believe that politics should be about discussing policies rather than attacking the characters of one’s political enemies.
Anti Boris drivel with a sprinkling of sanctimonious piety. A wonder Starmer’s doctored CV wasn’t included.
I’m afraid this article just sounded spiteful to me.
Yep. Pointless, low-grade ranting. Some reasonable points but a bit of journalistic dignity wouldn’t have gone amiss. I expect better from UnHerd.
Praise where praise is due! Why no mention of her part in the destruction of the dreaded Mekon,* the architect of the idiotic Lockdown?
She may yet prove to be England’s version of Messalina, but at least she has rendered one great deed of public service.
(* Dominica Cummings Esq.)
Because it undermines her thesis.
well DC is certainly getting his own back now! That said, his Brexit efforts and his attempts at a very necessary ‘stable clean’ of the Civil Service helps – IMHO – temper his full-on (and early) craving for lockdown (a major mistake).
I couldn’t agree more.
Or perhaps Livia, so she may yet do us all a service.
Carrie Antoinette is a problem not because of her gender or her supporters faux feminism, she is a problem because she is electoral kryptonite. There will always be grifters in politics but when they become the story it’s their party that suffers. The damaged child that is BJ failed to control his courtesan, sure, but the party as a whole failed to control both of them. There is something of the Sid and Nancy about them and they need to be a pretty distant memory for the electorate by the next election, or the Tories will pay the price. Unless of course Labour can go even more tonto and sack Starmer in favour of a Galloway/Putin ticket – which though unlikely cannot be ruled out.
“He has Don Juan syndrome, which is a desire to cleave to, and to punish, the mother who abandoned him. He has betrayed every woman who cared for him, and many who didn’t.”
Where does this leave the countless other females in his life who facilitated these betrayals by opening their legs for him?
Good point, coarsely expressed.
Brutal, but fair. Boris brightness as a Prime Minister has dimmed as Carrie has inexorably sucked internal political power away from him. She is pretty. He is besotted. Like the schoolboy, that we always knew he had in him. Boris needs to grow a pair, for the sake of the country. Come on man! Unfortunately he kicked out Cummings who could have lent him a couple.
I tend to work on the basis of wishing all married couples well: including re-married couples. Bit, I cannot see the Johnsons making it to a Derby & Joan pair, living out their days, quietly, with roses around the door.
Game, set and match to Tanya Gold I think.
Why do so many people focus on Johnson’s infidelity?
Should John F Kennedy have been removed from office because of his many infidelities?
Its a ridiculous argument not least because the implication is that anybody who has cheated on a partners or been divorced, should not be allowed any role above sweeping the streets.
There are plenty of reasons why Johnson is not fit for office. Attacking his personal life is so puritanical.
Wow, what a lot of poisonous anger. What in your background brought forth this foaming fury? Please be specific.
I have no doubt that NN controls BG…in the way that most men are controlled by women….it is in their jenes.
In my old age I have realised that men and women wield power in a completely different fashion and without doubt the female version is much more cerebral or perhaps innately of the female psyche.
In the end of course we mirror nature in the raw….the female gets what she wants and the male gets sex…a rather poor bargain IMO.
None of this makes for good government, but it does insure the survival of the species, unlike the diabolical alphabet people.
I’m an alphabet person of the L variety, and I assure you there are many L, G, and Bs, that want no part of the Q,T or other additions. Many of us feel Stonewall has destroyed the good standing that LGB people had worked long and hard for.
… and you could also leave out the B ‘cos they’re just greedy heterosexuals.
Hahaha thank you
There wasn’t actually any golden wallpaper so this whole article is blether.
Ghastly form of the ” Guildford girl” species…
So, to summarise Tanya, Carrie isn’t doing feminism the right way and she has Boris under coercive control?
With regard to Tanya’s issue with Carrie’s feminism, we see how coalition-building has become impossible within a movement that advocates identity politics and intersectionality… a wildly divisive set of beliefs that make it just about impossible to get a coalition of activists with diverse identities to rally around a single shared goal.
With regard to Boris being under coercive control, the suggestion that any politician, any MP, should act totally independently of their partner is ludicrous. Partners have to live with each other after all and each vet the other’s moral compass. I would expect a politician to run ideas by their partner, to solicit their input, and modify to some extent the position on issues. I also expect that a politician would rarely, if ever, adopt a position to which their partner is vigorously opposed. When we elect a politician to office we have to expect that the politician and their partner come as a pair, not totally independent, isolated individuals.
There are plenty of people who know their partner’s politics are hopelessly emotional and disregard them as such. This isn’t just about humouring somebody over the dinner table, it is the actual day job (for him but not for her). Perhaps it takes a woman not to be able to distinguish the domestic sphere from the public one.
Tanya Gold has no idea about the sexual desire of many men to have a large number of sexual partners. Boris is probably one such man. Power, money and status only matter as the means of attracting a sexual partner. There is no political purpose to being PM. But who can blame Tanya? Dominic Cummins thought he mattered more to Boris than Carrie.
Great ! Tanya’s going to save us from the fancy-pants feminists who spend their time reviewing flashy restaurants and high end sport’s utility vehicles .
Or decrying how the riffraff are crowding out their Cornish riviera holiday haven . (Not on their own behalf of course but for the common people )
Phew it’s good to see universalist feminism snatched back from middle class interlopers .
classic new woke Surrey faux- Sloane
What a petty screed ! This piece is an irrational and unnecessarily mean-spirited personal attack. It would be a total waste of time and space if it didn’t exemplify the bitterness of the class that wants to level and flatten the actor in society… the productive members of society…. the members of society who stick their necks out in service. We have become a humanity that eats its own and Tanya Gold should be ashamed for presuming to speak on Boris and Carrie Johnson’s personal life in this way.
Carrie a pleased with herself blonde PR with little charm or brain and teeth like that German soccer player, scary teeth. She did ruin Johnson, having babies when he was trying to get a country going, fighting with people. He was terrified of her, shivered with fear. now she will go on about a wedding at Chequers (how the f**k to you send out invites when you can see your husband is about to be trashed) like she got him to buy the gold wallpaper. She is totally unbearable and thrusting and woke but not awake. She is a Bclass bimbo, probably all he could get. He could find better in the Ukraine, or probably has found. Poor Boris. He seems an innocent (ok i know he tries to fire up a cunning streak every now and again) and no match for the Carries and Dominics of this world.