Marching on International Women's Day. Credit: Daniel Pockett / Getty

You should be able to rely on the Left to be on the side of the feminists.
After all, socialism is supposedly about true egalitarianism. And as a lifelong campaigner for women’s liberation, I am well aware that male Leftists think of themselves as feminist allies.
Conservatism, on the other hand, is not so friendly towards us. It often favours a commitment to so-called traditional values and ideas, isn’t so keen about change. And let’s not talk about Thatcher – she was certainly no feminist. She was a classic example of a certain type of right-wing woman who espouses the view that women are to blame for holding themselves back; it’s not the patriarchy’s fault, and they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps as she had done.
And yet, in recent years, I have experienced far more direct sexism from these so-called feminist ‘socialist’ men than Tory ones. When they speak about fighting for equality, more-often-than-not they mean ‘among men’. They are actively supporting activities and industries that harm women and girls. They are calling feminists bigots and they are waving the flag for fundamentalist religion.
Do I exaggerate? Let’s look at a perfect example of the shift in attitude on the Left, as epitomised by the new brand of hard-left brocalists that surfaced with Corbyn’s cabal.
Owen Jones, a hard-left journalist, campaigner, and one who should attacking the exploitation of women, is a classic example of the socialist hypocrites I’m talking about. In an article for the Guardian back in 2015, the Corbynista poster boy defended a serving member of Parliament, Simon Danczuk, who was exposed as a prolific pornography consumer.
And yet, only a month earlier, Jones had lectured other men about why they should do more for feminism. In the article defending Danczuk’s use of porn, Jones also criticised the fact that three judges had been dismissed from their positions because they “watch(ed) porn on the job”. They had, he said, been “publicly embarrassed and dismissed”. Instead of recognising that pornography directly harms women and girls, Jones sided with the male public servants who were enjoying women being exploited instead of doing their jobs.
He’s not alone in this view. His Leftist chums in the Labour leadership agree with him about the rights of men to consume women through pornography and prostitution. Corbyn and John McDonnell both believe in decriminalised pimping, brothel owning and sex buying – all in the name of women’s liberation, of course.
Jones is also notorious for lecturing women about who actually has the right to decide who is female or not; he regularly berates anyone who dares suggest that people with penises are not actually women. In one of his articles, he declared that the group of people he terms ‘transphobes’ (who refuse to accept men as women) will be consigned to the “wrong side of history” for their views.
This wasn’t how it used to be. Remember Tony Blair? Hard-line Leftists may despise him, but many feminists did not. He was the one who introduced women-only shortlists in order to successfully address some of the massive imbalances in parliament. What has the great socialist leader Corbyn done? Decided that the base-line criteria for being included on a women-only shortlist is to have self-identified as a woman
There is no clearer way to dominate and disenfranchise women than to insist that we don’t even know what one is!
The Tories, on the other hand, no longer the reactionaries of old, are more open to the idea that women are full, equal citizens than those macho Momentum types who act like thugs around female MPs who refuse to toe the hard-left line.
As the typical Leftist male gets his boxers in a twist, crowing his support for everything from stripping to legal brothels, the Conservative Human Rights Commission is holding an urgent enquiry into the harms of the sex trade. Meanwhile, the kerfuffle over men who define as women being allowed on all-female shortlists is being challenged by men writing for right-of-centre publications.
Even stranger, though, is the Left’s new attitude towards religious fundamentalism. Once the Left baulked at the idea of hardline religious doctrine because of the inherent misogyny and homophobia. Not any more. Now the political Left is full of men defending the ‘right’ of women to be covered in a full-face veil in the name of modesty but some on the Right are respectfully challenging.
I do think this shift has come about as Leftist men have latched on to a distortion of feminism that is all about individual ‘empowerment’, and nothing to do with challenging male power. This ‘fun feminism’, in which baking cupcakes and pole dancing are deemed liberating, lets woke dudes off the hook.
But as far as I’m concerned, if men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working. And it is hardly surprising that there are certain men would rather cheer on the idea of a woman walking around in a basque rather than dungarees; men who prefer the ‘slut’ marches to the angry Reclaim the Night demonstrations. Rebrand feminism so that men are no longer threatened, and everyone’s happy. Except the actual feminists that is.
It seems to me that when it comes to feminism, and defending the rights of women to live as equal citizens, the categories of Left and Right don’t imply what they used to. Politics has been turned on its head. Let’s face it, if Corbyn and his henchmen believe that it’s fine and dandy for a man to decide he is a woman, and shout ‘bigot’ at those of us that refuse to accept this madness, we may as well go to the Tories for a little old-fashioned courtesy.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTime to retire Nan. End the Gerontocracy! No running for office after 60. That would allow a senator to serve until 66 which seems like a perfect retirement age. Better yet term limits of a max of 12 years. Although we should probably raise the minimum age to 40 IMHO. I’m sure my last suggestion may not be popular but 40-60 is young enough to understand changes in technology and society but old enough to have the wisdom of experience.
Nope, not in favour of that. The Millennials can run the world after I’m gone. Until then, I want geriatrics like me running it.
Yep. The millennials will be immediately coming for your pensions and health and social care. Time to get a taste of what small state self-dependence is really like, grandad.
Fortunately I have acquired some wealth during my long life, and can pay for those things myself.
I must say this creature does rather remind me of Rider Haggard’s SHE.
Perhaps she will have the same fate?
She Who Must Be Ignored.
You mean several centuries of absolute rule?
Come to think of it, she’s already had the equivalent of that. (It just seemed like centuries.) You’re right! They are the same.
Ms. Ice-cream fridge … part of a dying ineffectual elite who’ve lost touch with the common people.
Right now trouble or war in the middle east is good for the Russians. Why would Putin want a cease fire
Why are you looking for logic here?
He recognises the American system as one where protests will have no effect. They can call for cease fires all they like – the US government isn’t going to listen.
What Putin/Russia wants is discord in the US. What he really really wants is Trump back in power and the US withdrawing from Ukraine/NATO/the World.
The Gaza cause is extremely harmful to Biden and the democrats who are reliant on the young and educated who skew more towards ceasefire and Palestine. Biden’s Boomer-esque support for Israel could be what kills his election chances.
I just wish the Right thought as critically of the “Iranian-backed” statement as the “links to Russia” one.
For Pelosi, the alternative is blaming the progressive institutions that are normally unwavering in their support for Democrats. Much easier to blame Russia.
Russia never went away. Four years of the collusion hoax were not enough, not when more American leftists that people want to imagine still believe that claim. Of course, Pelosi will blame this on the Kremlin. The last thing that Dems want is for their animus toward Jews, based purely on the oppressed/oppressor narrative, to be exposed. That it’s too late doesn’t matter. Again, some of their supporters still think Trump won because of Putin. They’ll parrot any talking point they’re given.
Again, some of their supporters still think Trump won because of Putin.
Well, some of Trump’s supporters think he lost because the election was “stolen”.
The Pelosi comment sounds rather weird.
As for Russiagate, the Mueller report did not find enough to lead to a trial. But it did find that
– Russia interfered systematically (and illegally) in the election
– The Trump campaign welcomed the Russian interference.
– There were lots of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials, which Trumps people lied about afterwards.
Enough to justify an investigation and a lot of press coverage, but, OK, not enough to make a case for criminal conspiracy. Apparently this kind of canoodling with an enemy intelligence organisation is considered normal and acceptable for a US presidential candidate.
Let me cite Wikipedia
Occam’s razor. The simpler explanation here is that Nancy Pelosi is a bat-s*** crazy half senile old lady who wasn’t that bright to begin with in a party that is so far out of touch with the regular folks they could barely beat a glorified game show host who makes angry and incoherent internet posts in the wee hours of the morning and whose policy choices depend on who he likes this week. Staggeringly, the Democrats may be so out of touch that they cannot duplicate their incredible accomplishment.
While I don’t necessarily accept the suggestion put forward, I don’t have much difficulty in accepting that if something bad is going down somewhere in the world, there is at least a chance that Russia is behind it.
I suppose anything is possible. It isn’t that the Russians wouldn’t attempt to foment discord in the US. Putin was originally a KGB agent. I just wonder why they’d choose such an indirect and roundabout method. The 2016 ‘interference’, amounted to posting deceptive facebook posts from dummy accounts, something that’s trivially easy for almost anyone to do and basically free, so much so that the Russians were hardly the only people doing it.
Organizing physical protests, though, requires actual physical assets in the foreign country. While I don’t doubt Russia has assets in the US, as I’m sure the US has assets in Russia, I doubt they’d risk exposing those assets to inflict a mild political controversy on a nation already polarized along partisan, social, regional, and racial lines. It just seems too far fetched a strategy even for Putin, and Pelosi is pretty consistently stupid and out of touch these days. It doesn’t take much to get Americans fighting each other. If you look at history, it never has actually. Putin doesn’t need to ‘do’ anything, but I’m sure he does enjoy watching America destroy itself.
Although I have a pretty fair distaste for Russia and everything it stands for, I acknowledge that it is good at two things, namely 1) attritional warfare (easy enough when the leadership doesn’t give a damn about its own people) and 2), cyber-warfare. In relation to the second, I am an old school Cold Warrior in the Reagan/Thatcher mould. In my youth and young adulthood, I could always take one thing for granted, namely that America hates Russia, and the more right-wing the American the more hatred there would be. Nowadays, it almost seems the converse is true, and that right-wing Americans are often pro-Putin. I put that down to the fact that during the last three or four years, a lot of right-wing Americans spent a lot of time on “conspiracy theorist” websites. In addition to peddling lots of those websites contained comments from “people” who were very pro-Putin. I suspect that this isn’t a coincidence.
That I will agree with. I would add resource extraction and authoritarian government to the list of things Russia excels at. I also think it’s pretty certain some, maybe most, of the more bizarre conspiracy theories on the right do indeed come from some Kremlin sub-basement cyber-warfare division and probably some on the left as well. That is not at all far fetched. I question how much traction those theories actually have on the right. The media loves to dig up nonsense and act like it’s widespread to discredit populists and conservatives.
I think more of the anti-Ukraine sentiment comes from the reemergence of America’s traditional isolationist tendencies, a development that should have been expected to happen eventually after the Cold War ended. Libertarians were always non-interventionist even during the Bush/Reagan years, they just had little influence, but the libertarians have been among those who have benefited most from the tea party movement and Trump.
All I can say about that is that I have a number of very old friends who never showed any conspiracy theorist tendencies until four years ago, but who now are “textbook” conspiracy theorists. These people are now also pro-Russia. They are people who I knew right through the Cold War, and who were at that time as anti-Russian as the rest of us, so I am guessing that their pro-Russian sympathies have arisen at the same time as they embraced conspiracy theories, and probably from the same sources.
It does appear that conspiracy theories are gaining ground these days, but one must ask are more people believing conspiracy theories, or is it simply a case of a broader and more open media market covering a wider range of views, making so-called conspiracy theories more prominent. If more people are believing in conspiracy theories, then the next question is why? Is the Russian government of today better at spreading nonsense than the conspiracy theorist of yesteryear? Perhaps, or perhaps the increased belief in conspiracy theories is a result of decreased trust in the establishment government and media. I don’t have a firm answer. I don’t doubt Russia is putting out conspiracy theories, but I think they’re one among many who are taking advantage of the present political climate.
Palestine conflict
Cui bono?
Anyone who wants to see American military focus distracted by another front.
Who could.that be?
She’s right in a roundabout way. The Russians are behind the idea of Palestinian nationhood. Operation SIG was not successful in arming muslim Arabs with weapons to invade Israel, but it was successful in arming them with ideology to attack Israel from within. The first document in history to describe a Palestinian nation was of course the palestinian liberation organisation’s charter, drafted in 1964, in Moscow. Without the Russians, there would be no cause to protest for.
What about Pelosi’ connections to the Hooded Claw
“Pelosi was recorded telling a group of pro-Palestine demonstrators to “go back to China””
In the UK you would get investigated by the police for even using that phrase.
Were the protesters in question in fact Chinese?
She looks like one of the ghouls from the movie They Live!