Why I want feminism and not equality (and why they are not the same thing)

Unlike equalists, feminists do not want men to share their oppression

 

How many feminists believe they are working towards equality? How many men self-define as equalists over feminists? Equality is almost universally accepted as the definition of feminism. But the term equality has never been questioned.

I am a feminist and I do not strive for equality. I support liberation. The defenders of equality espouse moderate feminist principles: equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity with no special considerations i.e. positive discrimination, failure is down to the individual, and above all, women must embrace hierarchal work structures where the job always comes first. Equality takes the male status quo as the standard to which women aspire.

To be equal, women have to show they are strong enough to live up to men’s standards in a man’s world. Backers of equality cheer as women enlist in institutionally discriminatory police forces, join the military in invading other countries and committing war crimes, train for the roughest of men’s sports whether its dangerous and cruel horse racing, or life-threatening cage fighting.

Once women have joined male dominated areas of work, nobody asks why anybody regardless of gender would work in these repressive institutions. The crux of the matter is that men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.

When women enter the male realm whether law, politics, or a construction site, they find themselves in a repugnant world in which their only means of survival is by undergoing a fundamental transformation leaving them with little opportunity to make any change. We see this manifested in descriptions of women professionals as harsher than men. Assertive women are seen as aggressive bitches.

It is impossible to alter male spheres, which are resistant to outside interference, because women are a minority that could be cut out at anytime, and men have vested interests in preserving the status quo.

The Equality Act 2010, which replaced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, was designed to give the false impression that women’s subjugation had been legally acknowledged. Political support was gathered because politicians knew no great changes would ensue. Equality legislation exists throughout Europe but nowhere is there equality.

The attitude of the legal profession to equality is best shown by the number of women Attorney Generals over the years: one women in contrast to 202 men. The Act is barely enforceable due to extortionate legal costs and severe costs to time. Of 89 per cent of women health care workers who experience sexual harassment, barely 1 per cent initiate legal actions because they know that regardless of whether they win or lose they will be branded a troublemaker and all hopes of a promotion will be dashed.

The Act is a handmaiden to equality as it strikes down attempts at positive discrimination. Equalists refuse to support positive discrimination; instead they believe in equal treatment and equal outcomes. Here, a contradiction emerges, equalists support 50: 50 men and women in institutions but women will not be recruited in large numbers because ‘equality’ laws have made quotas illegal.

Other unequal situations arise from the equalist debate. A right to maternity leave or an abortion is not an equal right, women are requesting discrimination because of their gendered differences. A woman will never be equal to a man because she can never be the same, and gendered distinctiveness is not valued by equalists.

Arguing about equality or difference results in a debate that drains the life out of the feminist movement. Men plead both equality and difference when it is to their benefit. They argue equality when they want paternity leave, and difference when they want to be paid more prize money for sports.

The equality and difference argument is banal. Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up, annual rape of men would increase from 9,000 to 69,000, male prostitution would soar, men’s penises would be sprawled across page 3, men would stroll down the catwalk with their penises hanging out, and the Labour Party would roll out pink vans to attract women voters and blue vans to entice male voters.

Unlike equalists, feminists do not want men to share their oppression.

The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms – not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist. Equality is harmful to women and most men, as they are required to replicate behaviours that are degrading and dehumanising. Once women buy into the masculine terms of society, our civilization will become crueler than ever expected.

Men hold the balance of power. Power is granted in the wrong ways, and used for the wrong ends. Change can come about by redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men.

*This piece was inspired by two of the greatest feminist thinkers of our time, Germaine Greer and Catherine MacKinnon

Charlotte Rachael Proudman is a barrister in human rights law and a PhD candidate in law and sociology researching FGM at the University of Cambridge

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

243 Responses to “Why I want feminism and not equality (and why they are not the same thing)”

  1. Enam Lesfa

    Holy Crap! This article gave me a lot to think about… Well, I’ll start by saying I’m suprised that the person who wrote this is a PHD Candidate… To clarify, I don’t think Miss. Proudman is an idiot or un-intelligent, I was just expecting bigger words… I’m not complaining, don’t get me wrong. Actually, I feel quite thankful. Anyway, I actually did enjoy this article, I’ll be honest I’ve been feeling a little unsure about feminism lately, and by unsure I mean to say that I can’t help but wonder what the point of me being a feminist is? I mean I’m a guy, and I feel like I have no part in it… Don’t get me wrong I side with the ideals, live and fight for a world where women don’t get treated like crap or get descrimminated against. But then I want that for everyone, a world where people aren’t descrimminated against because of their skin colour, gender or physical sex. I’ll be honest, the main reason I don’t/have been putting off the idea of calling myself an equalist is because of the mental image of Avatar Korra busting down my door and frying my backside with a fireblast. (And with that reference I hope I’ve clarified the type of nitwit that I am). The first thing I am confused by in this article is the cage fighting comment… So wait, is it wrong for me to think that Leslie Smith is a total badass? Or heck, the idea of any women being able to kick some major ass as being awesome? Is that really a guy thing? Don’t get me wrong that getting less sports prize money is bull. WTF! The only thing I know about Tiger Woods is that he screwed a bunch of women and cheated on his wife… Or something? AND I DON’T EVEN WATCH GOLF!!! Heck, I’m pretty sure the Womens england football team is better than the mens, although that could just be down to lack of corruption… I dunno if that is the case but it wouldn’t surprise me… Although that said, it wouldn’t surprise me if the womens league was fixed, its football, there’s alot of money to made! And on that note, I’ll mention something that does confuse me… Why do equalist’s want people to be raped? I’ll be honest, I like this article because it challenges the former definition of Equality I had and gives it a different one I previously hadn’t considered. The understanding I had was that Equality was about equal rights, where as (and I think this definitely an interpretation) the article gives tells an understanding that Equality means that men and women should be treated the same in all aspects of society both positive and negative. I most certainly do not want any of the negatives for all of society that women have had to endure, like persurcution (a: not sure if I’ve spelled that correctly. b: Not sure if I understand the definition for that word correctly) for being sexually assaulted or raped, being treated in an inappropriate manner or thought that they cannot do something because they are of a physical sex. Now that said, there is a point that the article makes that does leave me feeling slightly confused… And that’s page 3. I think I understand where Miss. Proudman is coming from, in that page 3 is essentially selling sex with page 3 and having women on it. I believe the idea is that it objectfies women to which the counter argument most often used (as I understand it) is that the women on page 3 actually feel empowered by it… But this does still make me wonder two things, 1: regardless of objectification or empowerment why aren’t men shown? It’s just for selling sexual splendor right? Wouldn’t something like that make the paper money? 2: What would the guy actually show? I mean would it really be his junk? If that’s the case would women have to show their Vagina’s on page 3? I know that sounds very trivial but to be honest it’s always something that confused me… I mean, doesn’t that mean that women possess the capactity to become more nude than men? Wierd). Another point the article makes is about making change in Law, Politics and construction. Now I understand why its important to make change in law and poiltics (and by “Law AND Politics”, I mean the day a change happens in politics overall is the day Thatcher rises from the grave to bitch slap the world with Churchill lighting them both some cigars)… But construction? Really? What changes need to be made? I heard that some builders got some legal action thrown their way after having whistled at a women. First: OK, there might, and I mean might be some women out there who would take that as a compliment, But (second) what the hell! Why aren’t lazy dipwads getting on with their work! If I was their boss I’d probably shock em a tazer. Anyway, there are some others points I’d like to go over but It’d probably take a little long. I feel like this article was a little unbalanced but it was a good read, for me at least… One thing that does both confuse and intrigue me is “positive Descimmination”… I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that.

  2. Human ... Work

    Sounds like you want equality but not want females to dictate what equality means.

  3. Aggrobiscuit

    It can be compared to female circumcision though, which does exist even if Wikipedia lumps both practices under one name. Which is probably why Mason Dixon is unaware of it.

  4. Laura Vergara

    Gavin, I truly appreciate your views, especially because you are a man. Some women, such as me, have similar opinions, but it is rare to find a man who can see from our female perspective.

    Many men seem to suggest that biology is the main determinant of our culture, and try to excuse certain bad aspects of our culture as a result of nature. However, I disagree with this view for two reasons:

    First, I’m really interested in native cultures (they are not as well known as the powerful Western culture, African or Asian cultures). However, from the little I’ve learned so far, the role of men and women differs vastly from what we are used to seeing (and natives share our same basic biology). In a small tribe that’s slowly disappearing in the Amazon men and women alike are allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. As far as Native American culture (North America), in some tribes women fought the wars with men. In other tribes, women worked harder than men most of the year, except during the winter, but both genders respected and regarded each other. Women would take care of farming, the household (as true heads of the household), and other responsibilities. The men didn’t take as many responsibilities most of the year. However, men would work very hard during the winter months because farming wasn’t possible and they needed to hunt for food, which required more physical strength. Men valued women for their very hard work, and women valued men for their very hard work too. Many native societies created cultures which valued women as much as men, they just didn’t have a chance to flourish after ironically being robbed of their lands, slaughtered, enslaved, and nearly eradicated by patriarchal societies.

    Second, our closest relatives (biologically speaking) are apes. Dr. Robert Sapolsky, who is a Harvard Graduate and Professor at Standford University, has studied wild baboons for 30 years, and their hierarchies seem to resemble the hierarchies formed in patriarchal societies. During his research one group of baboons ingested contaminated food and the alpha males died. After this happened, the group of baboons has developed a nicer and softer culture without hierarchies but stronger personal connections. This group of baboons continues living this way after twenty years, and this is not 100% due to genetic predisposition (such as eradicating the alpha male gene), because baboons usually leave their “homes” and join new groups when they reach adolescence. New young male baboons who join this nice group initially display a lot of aggressiveness and violence trying to assert themselves, but they soon realize that this culture doesn’t appreciate this behavior and adapt to it in about six months. Culture definitely plays a big role, and our biology doesn’t necessarily benefit the most from, nor always leads to, a patriarchal society.

    I think at this point we have evolved enough to use our brains and improve any bad aspects of our cultures. Our capability to reflect, to imagine different perspectives, to solve problems, to discuss ethics and philosophy, and to distinguish right from wrong makes, suggest that we could create a society that’s equally beneficial for men and women. As long as a mentality of competition instead of collaboration prevails, there will always be a loser and a winner. I hope one day this will change because even wild baboons were able to do it.

  5. Gavin Gamache

    Hi Laura, good to know someone out there is reading this after so long! Thanks for leading me to look up the Sapolsky study on NCBI; that’s pretty interesting! Do you know the name of the Amazonian tribe you mentioned, and where I could find more about them?

    And thanks for the compliment, but I’d deflect your appreciation to the women in my life (one in particular) who led by example. So I’d say to YOU, keep your head up and fight the good fight: sometimes there are people quietly watching and learning.

  6. Laura Vergara

    Hi Gavin,

    Unfortunately, I didn’t save the link. I don’t recall the exact name of the video I watched, but if I find it again I will share it with you. I had found the information looking at videos of uncontacted tribes on YouTube about 4 months ago. I watched several videos, but this particular video was describing a tribe in the Amazonia, I watched about 2 or 3 videos about existing tribes in this region.

    You might also enjoy this website http://www.uncontactedtribes.org/ 🙂

  7. Rex Duis

    It terrifies me that a barrister specializing in human rights law could fail to see male infant circumcision as force genital cutting. Further she ridiculously suggests that women expose their vaginas on catwalks and on page 3. Its their breasts they expose and many radical feminists believe its a sign of being liberated.

    Feminists are literally everywhere and they hold these views in private. Yet they have infiltrated our education, health and justice systems. I found this article linked to a nurses profile on Twitter. They get into every system and contaminate it with their bias and absurd ideas like the ones above.

    This dishonest author who claims to fight for human rights conveniently ignores male prison rape statistics in her drive to make out women as greater victims. This is what men face when they go into the courts. Why would anyone want more female judges when they could secretly be feminists with views like this?! How can we ever trust women again? And worse some weak men are becoming feminists too. Its incredibly dangerous and worrying not because they hold views I disagree with or because I’m a ‘misogynist’, which I’m not. But because of the intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance that plagues followers of this nasty cult.

  8. Laura Vergara

    Hi Gavin,

    Somehow I missed something when I read your reply the other day… but I’m glad you have been surrounded by good women, especially that one who has led with her example (that’s not always easy to do).

    I also found the name of the Amazonian tribe, it is the Zo’é tribe:
    “The Zo’é are polygamous, and both men and women may have more than one partner.” http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/zoe

  9. Ray

    Male privilege is a myth. The article pointing out how tough the male world is proves this. Doubtless not the author’s intent. And Greer and MacKinnon are both despicable.

  10. Sara Lin Wilde

    Circumcision can go wrong and have negative repercussions for male sexual function, sure. And that is why I oppose it. At least that’s seen as a tragic side effect, though. A woman’s loss of sexual function after FGM is viewed as, at best, an acceptable cost for increasing male pleasure and, at worst, the entire point of the exercise, since good girls don’t like sex.

    Also, at least circumcision is chosen based on perceptions of the boy’s interests, however misguided: he’ll be healthier or closer to God. My understanding is that FGM is done to make girls more appealing to potential husbands, which is why they’re sewn up to make a tight hole and preserve virginity.

  11. Sara Lin Wilde

    Who decided that women should need to land husbands to be able to survive? These mothers sure didn’t.

  12. Sara Lin Wilde

    There’s so much to jump on here, but I’m going to give you the real reason feminists complain about superhero shirts: because culture matters. Culture is how our children learn their place in the world and what options are available to them for the future. I don’t want my children or anyone else’s to observe, as is often evident in our culture’s stories, that men are here to do important, exciting things, while women’s contribution is limited to T&A.

  13. Sara Lin Wilde

    Actually, I can speak to the issue of why there are few men in child care, since that is my profession.

    1) During our schooling, the few men in our program were actively told they need to be wary of accusations of sexual misconduct, because it’s presumed that men will not take an interest in children unless they are paedophiles. Even men who are interested are discouraged from pursuing this line of work for this reason.

    2) When a remotely competent man enters child care, it causes such consternation that he’s almost immediately promoted to a more “appropriate” management role. Women have to earn those positions with years of hard work, but men are presumed better qualified for management than child care.

    3) Caregivers are ridiculously poorly paid. Women often enter these professions because we’re socialized to caregiving and we’d be doing it for free anyway, so might as well make some money at it. Men, who are usually not socialized to take on caregiving rules free of charge, have no incentive to enter caregiving because they aren’t looking at the crappy rate of pay as “better than nothing”.

  14. GentNormal

    Yes, I am against it and am particularly appalled by the fact that most people get circumcised in the US, for precisely NO reason. But no, it’s not the same as FGM. FGM destroys a woman’s ability to enjoy sex and is specifically designed to hurt women. Circumcision is (for sane people, not Americans) a religious tradition that is dangerous and should not happen without consent, but has a different history and much less awful effects.

  15. Annoyed Annonymous Person

    No matter what kind of words you hide your sexist propaganda behind, it’s obviously still going to be sexist. Every feminist in the world always tries to find the anti-woman side of everything, so they have another excuse to be treated better than men.

    I believe I should be allowed to curse in this comment, especially when my life and happiness is at stake. So, shut the fuck up.

  16. Pvblivs

    The reality is that there has never been any subjugation of women. Women have always been treated as superior to men. Women are regarded as having an intrinsic value, while a man has value only if and to the degree that he provides for women.

    Men’s genitals ARE sliced up. It is only women’s genitals which are protected by law from such abuse. Men do get raped, by women even. But it doesn’t get included in the statistics because “we don’t count it as rape.” And I’m pretty sure that men would much rather have their penises shown on page three than die in coal mines.

    Women have held the actual power for a long time. But a few select men have gotten to wear the robes and hear the praise (mostly because they were also subject to assassination.) Feminists see that it is now safe and so decide they don’t need men to be the face anymore.

  17. CheshireRed

    Weapons-grade anti-male sexist gibberish masquerading as intellectual meanderings.

  18. michaelmobius1

    And this is what gets you on a PhD programme at Cambridge these days

  19. f1_karen

    Pity her writing is only average, she may need a career to fall back on.

  20. ArsVampyre

    Pstt. I hate to tell you this, but those problems you talk about? FGM is a third-world issue and I doubt you’ll find any western male who accepts it. Rape statistics now show women rape men as often as men rape women (Bet you’ll argue that one but statistics are statistics), male prostitution is common, men’s CHESTS are sprawled across magazine covers, men do stroll down catwalks without shirts, and I’ve no doubt the labour party does everything it can to suppress male votes, if they think men won’t vote for them. You’re a joke. Your bigotry and ideology is a joke, and I’ve no idea at this point why anyone would be interested in working with you. Good luck in your new career in professional victimhood; I think your law career may be over.

  21. Mr B J Mann

    Yes, witches, not warlocks.

    And mothers, not fathers.

    Just like women (or g^ys) put women in size zero dresses.

    And as feminists never tire of telling us:

    They wear high heels and makeup for themselves, not men.

    And this woman is stating women don’t, or shouldn’t, want to work in the male professions, etc (and non of them even ask to work down mines or sewers).

    So why do they STILL blame men for everything?!

  22. KilowattTyler

    Yes, men created the sewers which men need to enter to break up fatbergs. If we all just cr*pped out of windows into the street this nasty and dangerous work would be avoided and gender equality achieved.
    It is really only members of the lumpen bourgeoisie who have the luxury of considering work as a pleasant and interesting activity which is capable of being moulded into convenient packages to suit their lifestyles. For most people, work is an unpleasant, normally stressful and uninteresting and sometimes dangerous activity which would be abandoned very quickly in the event of a lottery win or some other big windfall.

  23. peterdavis

    ‘ The crux of the matter is that men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.’

    Don’t worry we will just carry on in this brutal way, digging roads, building buildings, getting killed and maimed at work…..and you go right ahead in your highly paid legal profession.

    Who are you denigrating here…..men or the working classes?

  24. RazzyDog

    So what happened with the G-Spot. As much as I don’t agree with circumcising either male of female children and babies, you are totally wrong, circumcision on a male is the same as cutting away a girl’s labia. Men lose sensitivity after circumcision, and yet women still have their G-Spot, or is that another feminist fantasy.

  25. RazzyDog

    Some women say they are happy having their clitoris chopped off as well, but that doesn’t take away the fact that it should be a personal choice when you are old enough to make your own decisions.

  26. ThreeCheeseFondue

    I knew a female trainee barrister once. She was nuts. This woman sounds like she is cut from the same cloth, except she seems to have a bottomless pit of misandry on which to feast.
    I pity the man she ends up with, for it is likely he is not much of a man at all.

  27. Carter-Silk is a legend

    Quit yapping and go make me some tea, bitch…

  28. Empire Of Chaos

    Feminism only exists because men have allowed it to. If we really didn’t want you to have it, we would do to you what we do to all those poor people in third world countries. Feminists can blather all they wish but if civilization ever breaks down, feminism will cease to exist, almost instantly.

  29. phil1edinburgh

    Yes a troll certainly a troll – done it before on many websites – no family no friends – a troll hates jews too probably.

  30. the1beard

    Margaret Thatcher: “I hate feminism. It is poison.”

  31. Taca

    The most common form of FGM is called ‘nicking’ or ‘pricking’ of the female prepuce (clitoral hood), and removes little or no flesh. The most common form of MGM is euphemistically called ‘circumcision’ and is the complete amputation of the prepuce, the most sensitive erogenous tissue on the male body, and without the motile function of which the penis can not function as nature intended. The purpose of MGM is the suppression of male sexuality, and this is made explicitly clear in ancient texts right up to ‘medical’ journals from the early 20thC. Both globally and in the UK, in terms of fatalities and serious maimings, the problem of MGM dwarfs that of FGM and the fact that someone only cares about the welfare of girls whilst ignoring the gross violation of little boys says all you need to know about them.

  32. Eugene

    So many thoughts come to mind. The first is, “Where does all this anger come from?” This woman looks like she comes from a fairly middle class background. No father, which is probably part of the problem, but the rest of this neo-Marxist rant is filled with hate and vitriol. Female Genital Mutilation, which is barbaric, is not mentioned once in her anti-men diatribe. By the way, FGM is carried out by women. Makes you think. Is the world a physically dangerous place? Yes. Are women, who are not as physically strong as men, victimized when not protected by law, custom and (dare I say it?) their men? Yes. Brothels are filled with women and prostitutes are women. Where men are prostitutes, it is generally for gay men. As far as the catwalk and fashion argument goes; the fashion industry is run either by gay men or women. Heterosexual men like a well-dressed woman, but it is women who love to dress up, do their nails, hair and shop for hours trying on dresses. Most well-dressed men are “cleaned up” by the women in their lives.

    Men chase and compete with other men for women. Can this woman keep my house and raise my children? Women, in their turn, choose a man based on wealth, power and their ability to protect them and their children. Complementary personalities would be good, but given the number of divorces, this does not appear to be possible.

    The author’s view of how men should act has them being reduced to eunuchs, or gay men (fine if you happen to be gay).

    Germaine Greer, by the way, is not particularly left-wing and has, or had, a well-developed sense of humor. In her youth she also had a very healthy libido and liked strong, virile Italian men. Check out Camille Paglia for a different take on men and women.

    Now, I’m going to get my entrenching tool, dig a fighting position and wait for the enraged hoards to try and cut through the wire. I am locked and loaded.

  33. Sir Henry Morgan

    ” Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up…”
    As others have pointed out, it’s called circumcision!

    On hearing the hypocritical feminist Ms. Proudman was specialized in FGM law (FGM is such a huge problem in the UK, I’m surprised she has time to harass male lawyers – not!) I guessed she would be one of the types that denies male genital mutilation exists, even as it kills UK boys and maims UK men.

    Presumably cases like that of Goodluck Caubergs, who bleed to death in Manchester after Grace Adeleye sliced up his penis on a kitchen table, don’t even register for Ms. Proudman’s? Ms. Proudman no doubt sees nothing wrong with Ms. Adeleye getting off scott-free.

    Disgusting.

  34. brian anderson

    learn something, most FGM in the world is no more harmful than the male equivalent http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/

  35. Kirin

    “Any job can be scaled down to be more viable for women.” What you’re really just saying here is that women are inferior to men. It’s probably meant well, but sounds rather offensive and t’s not true either. No, jobs don’t need to be scaled down so those delicate fragile women can do them too. There’s barely any relevant differences between the sexes when it comes to jobs, and those differences are bigger between individuals than between sexes. Women don’t need easier jobs, they need an environment that respects and welcomes them as it does with men.

    Of course jobs should always be made as safe as possible, because people shouldn’t be disposable. Reducing weights would be useful for people with disabilities or who are not allowed to lift heavy things, but I think you are greatly underestimating the percentage of women who can lift 50lb. That men are on average a bit stronger doesn’t mean women are too weak to lift anything. The only people I know that can’t lift that weight are people who have had surgery and are no longer allowed to do so. And children. Most women can lift heavy stuff just fine and if they can’t they should work on their strength a bit. I’ve never had any issue lifting things and the men I’ve been working with never lifted double the weight I could handle. And that’s coming from a woman who, while strong by nature, leads a very passive life without exercise.

  36. Derek_V

    That explains your nutcase behavior last week. Brainwashed by protofascist ideology.

  37. Alice

    There are plenty of jobs in which workers are lifting 100+ pounds all day. Those jobs should be scaled to be safe for all, either with equipment sufficient to reduce the weight to 50 lbs. or less, or packing items into 20- 50 lb boxes, etc.

  38. Cod Gob

    1) I can imagine this is very common, which is both a shame and ridiculous.
    2) As someone who has previously worked in local governent, providing IT support for HR, Payroll and Finance, I completely disagree. Of all these departments, I came across 3 male managers: one who was in his late fifties, one who went onto be a Head of Service, and one other who was…yeah just a guy. HR was the biggest department in the council and there were no male managers in HR, and about 25% of their staff was male. I feel your statement unjustly undermines the hard work of men just for the sake of making it seem women must work harder to make manager roles. If this is the experience in your company, that’s horrible, but it is a stretch to say this is true across the board
    3) I think this is very fair. There are obviously exceptions in both sexes, but I think you are largly right about this. Also explains why there are not so many men working in charity shops (though I see many canvasing for charities)

  39. olican101

    Feminism MEANS equality. you cannot have one without the other.

  40. Christopher Horner

    Your behaviour over that email is ever more clear. Feminists like you don’t give a shit about equality.

  41. Christopher Horner

    Shut the fuck up you cretin.

  42. Christopher Horner

    Spoken like a true mangina.

  43. Christopher Horner

    Moron.

  44. Christopher Horner

    You are a fucking cunt.

  45. Christopher Horner

    Cunt.

  46. Christopher Horner

    British, and a cunt.

  47. Christopher Horner

    Cunt.

  48. Christopher Horner

    Shut the fuck up thick cunt.

  49. Christopher Horner

    In 1984 war means peace.

  50. Gavin Gamache

    Okay.

Leave a Reply