I was reading a story yesterday about a local authority who closed down a women's refuge because they wouldn't accept men as inmates. They said they couldn't afford similar provision for men so it would have to close. I can't at the moment locate the story but that was the gist of it. I seem to remember it was somewhere like Weymouth.
Common sense suggests that if there are limited resources you share them out evenly and provide support for both sexes but that doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone. I have no problem with the idea men do suffer from domestic violence so I think they should be provided with support but surely it makes no sense to deprive women because you can't afford to provide for men?
I was shocked to find I actually agree with Harriet Harman when she says male bankers are to blame for the banking crisis. After all the top jobs in such institutions usually go to men so they should take the responsibility. If they want the huge salaries and bonuses which go with such jobs then they should take the flak and the responsibility when things go wrong. It's nothing to do with feminism or doing men down. I don't agree with positive discrimination which is another of her big issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
No, sorry Jilly, Harriet Harman is wrong. It isn't male bankers who are responsible for the banking crisis. It is bankers. The fact that most happen to be male is not an essential part of the logic. There are female bankers too, tho' addmittedly not many. HH is a good example of how to let socialist feminism corrupt logic; and her a barrister too.
I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure I agree. So you're saying it's got nothing to do with the fact they are men? In fact you're saying them being men is irrelevant to the argument. It is an argument which is frequently used against women - e.g. the jobs which continue to be low paid are mainly done by women so they will always be low paid. Actaully when you look at it that is very strange logic!!
Post a Comment