So much posturing, so much fear! And as ever, a hole in the debate that, for now, is full of shouting. Simply put – where are the men?Err...
So much posturing, so much fear! And as ever, a hole in the debate that, for now, is full of shouting. Simply put – where are the men?Err...
5 comments:
"Why shouldn't a woman bring a child to work, if she is able?"
For exactly the same reason a man shouldn't. It's "work".
Where are the men? Staying away from the discussion because the one thing that can be guaranteed to bring the tribal warfare to an abrupt peace and all the nasty pointy things turn to face a common foe is the introduction in to the discussion of a person who might have a Y chromosome.
"where are the men?"
Over the fucking horizon and still accelerating.
Hiding from a vacuous stupid woman, perhaps?
Unfortunately Tanya Gold has a column in the Spectator, which doesn't offer an 'opt-out' option for my subscription, so I have to feed the beast.
Not sure why they employ her, she's not even an exhibit, as most of us can recognize a simpering fucking cretin even without bifocals.
Where are the men? In the outer wilderness, whence they were consigned by Harriet Harman et al:
"It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."
(from Coote, Harman and Hewitt's 1990 pamphlet 'The Family Way', quoted by Guido Fawkes 13/8/2011)
"For exactly the same reason a man shouldn't. It's "work"."
Don't get me started on 'Bring Your Daughter To Work Day'!
"Over the fucking horizon and still accelerating."
:D
"Unfortunately Tanya Gold has a column in the Spectator, which doesn't offer an 'opt-out' option for my subscription, so I have to feed the beast."
Judging by her pic, you're feeding her too well...
"...whence they were consigned by Harriet Harman et al"
Good point!
Post a Comment