Sunday, August 02, 2009

Harriet Harman: you can’t trust the Roman Catholic Church

This is the logical corollary of her assertion that ‘you can’t trust men in power’ and her aversion to the notion that leadership is male.

The Church of England must be making considerable progress - in her eyes.

And the Conservative Party must be an unending source of inspiration to her.

“I don’t agree with all-male leaderships,” she said. “Men cannot be left to run things on their own. I think it’s a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership.”

Well, tell that to Jesus.

If Harriet Harman were a man saying this of women, she would be pilloried to kingdom come.

And yet, Cranmer thinks she has a point.

There is much empirical evidence to support her assertion that ‘you can't trust men in power’. There is the whole of history for a start, which is replete with examples since time immemorial of man’s propensity to untrustworthiness in the exercise of power - temporal and spiritual. They have been proven time and again to be venal, corrupt, deceitful and war-mongering.

But this is not a quality of manhood; it is an attribute of power.

The king and the queen, the emperor and empress, the lord and the lady, the priest and the nun - all have shown themselves to be perfectly capable of the most disghusting excesses and the most inhuman and perverted of abuses.

Power corrupts whether exercised by men or women, though perhaps it corrupts more when comingled with testosterone, which some women posses more than others.

And if one needs evidence of its corrupting effect on the fairer sex, one only has to examine the career of Harriet Harman herself. She has skilfully manipulated her way almost to the top (and, Lord Mandelson permitting, she may yet get there), riding roughshod over those who have stood in her way and by attempting to change the rules to ensure that her gender is favoured irrespective of merit.

She clearly has a problem with men, possibly as a result of a neglectful or abusive father and/or an untrusting or overbearing mother. One cannot make laws or govern a country on the basis of psychological projection.

O, hang on...

But if leadership is not male, a fortiori is it not able-bodied, heterosexual or Caucasian.

And who says it should be human?

For is not that a little specie-ist?

If Harriet Harman’s quest for equality were to reach its logical endgame, the next Labour government (God forbid) would be an anti-meritocratic oligarchical construct consisting of: a man and a woman; a disabled man and a disabled woman; a homosexual and a lesbian; a disabled homosexual and a disabled lesbian; a black/Asian man and a black/Asian woman; a black/Asian disabled homosexual and a black/Asian disabled lesbian.

And an ape.

Or a dog or a rat.

Or is this the Conservative Party’s preferred list of candidates?

One-legged Asian lesbians have a secure future in politics, whichever party is in power.

But it is to be hoped that they might also know a thing or two about defence, foreign affairs, health or education.


Anonymous Male Lesbian said...

Why should 30 million or so white heterosexual males have to pay the price for whatever Harridan's father and dysfunctional family did or didn't do to her when she was being potty-trained?

Government would be a lot more efficient if we kicked out the professional victims.

2 August 2009 at 12:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

Great post, as usual, Your Grace. I do find a slight fault in your suggestions for a future Gov, though. The position of rat is already taken by Mandelson and the ape, well, take your pick.

2 August 2009 at 12:57  
Anonymous oiznop said...


But Your Grace is himself being somewhat specieist.

Where is the toad?

2 August 2009 at 13:00  
Anonymous Male Lesbian said...

Rat, ape, toad?

This is blatantly vertebratist!

Why can't we have leeches, lice and tapeworms in the cabinet? After all, there are many suitable candidates in the House of Commons.

2 August 2009 at 13:19  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Or is this the Conservative Party’s preferred list of candidates?

His Grace may find a clue to the future composition of the Parliamentary Conservative Party in this interview given by Dave (tw@) Cameron.

2 August 2009 at 14:09  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I happen to think that women are crueller, more vindictive, and less forgiving than men. I wouldn't want them in any position of power (except my hero Margaret, of course). Now, why shouldn't my opinion be less valid than the bitch harman?

2 August 2009 at 14:09  
Anonymous Orwellian Prophet said...

She is up to her usual trick. Wielding positive discrimination in the guise of equality to further her feminist agenda.
Equal opportunities implies a female leadership candidate when Brown goes.
Guess who that might be. Someone already only a heartbeat away from the nuclear trigger.

2 August 2009 at 14:45  
Anonymous len said...

When Nag, the wayside cobra, hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can,
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail -
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
( From Kipling)

2 August 2009 at 15:11  
Blogger Don't Call Me Dave said...

If power corrupts, is God corrupt?

2 August 2009 at 15:13  
Anonymous len said...


2 August 2009 at 15:16  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I agreee with John in Cheshire, Len, and Kipling. I'm female, but went to girls' schools; and you can leave those not caring if you never see another woman. Men, I thought, have to be better.

Later, though, I realized that those females turn into mothers - and heaven help their little boys. But there's the glitch. Those little boys turn into fathers - (well, some of them) - and they have daughters.......

So Cranmer's right! It's six and half.

And I really do think you others might have included some unicellular organisms in your cabinets!! Pig Plague virus might do, for a start.

2 August 2009 at 16:22  
Blogger Gnostic said...

So that's what a feminist looks like is it?

Poor buggers.

2 August 2009 at 16:43  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Harperson obviously yearns for the days of the Blessed Margaret.

2 August 2009 at 17:40  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Harriet Harman?

2 August 2009 at 18:36  
Anonymous Alun said...

I think Harriet Harman is actually trying to argue, not that one gender is better than the other, but that we need a spot of balance because we're better working together than on our own. Sounds reasonable to me.

2 August 2009 at 20:24  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

"I think Harriet Harman is actually trying to argue, not that one gender is better than the other, but that we need a spot of balance..."

One might say that that's what she's trying to argue. One might say that, except for the fact that that's not at all what she said.

2 August 2009 at 21:02  
Blogger John Henry said...

The poor dear has got her pretty little head filled up with all kinds of silly ideas. She should ask her husband to explain things once more because she is clearly out of her depth. Hopefully he will remind her that tokenism is not equality of opportunity.

2 August 2009 at 22:13  
Anonymous Nelson said...

The cat, the rat, and Mandy the dog, rule all England under a Fog.
(Apologies to W. Shakespeare)

2 August 2009 at 22:38  
Blogger News Blog said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3 August 2009 at 06:27  
Blogger Tom said...

Power doesn't corrupt. It reveals.

3 August 2009 at 06:47  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

I've met a few feministas who look like that. They make me want to laugh because they think they're really good-looking. The sad part is, they really believe it!!

3 August 2009 at 09:01  
Anonymous philip walling said...

V clever Mr Nelson.
Was it Shakespeare?

3 August 2009 at 09:23  
Anonymous Nelson said...

Not sure, I thought so, and If not it should have been.

3 August 2009 at 10:14  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Strewth there's good poetry on this post.Hope P.Laureate is watching.

3 August 2009 at 12:48  
Blogger dmk said...

Alun may have a point. After all, it is male and female together who reflect God's image, and 'it is not good for the man to be alone'.

But that's not the same as having a 'token woman' (or indeed a token man) in a leadership team, and may be more of an argument for team leadership rather than individuals.

Far be it from me to defend Harriet Harman, but I wonder if some of the reaction is because of who's saying it, as much as what she's saying.

3 August 2009 at 13:17  
Blogger The Half-Blood Welshman said...

"I shall be an autocrat: that's my trade. And God will forgive me: that's His."

Catherine the Great, proving that women can be just as arrogant and unpleasant as men, upon seizing power in 1762

3 August 2009 at 15:12  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

There is much empirical evidence to support her assertion that ‘you can't trust men in power’. . . .They have been proven time and again to be venal, corrupt, deceitful and war-mongering.

But this is not a quality of manhood; it is an attribute of power.

I beg leave to disagree with Your Grace. It is an attribute of manhood, or, to be precise, fallen humanity.

As Tom says, it is not power that corrupts, it only reveals the corruption.

3 August 2009 at 18:45  
Blogger Alfred of Wessex said...

Maybe Baron Mandelscum of Sodom might become acceptable to the Harridan woman if he were to undergo gender reassignment surgery?

3 August 2009 at 20:54  
Anonymous Cynthia said...

Please Alfred must we discuss such things at breafast!

4 August 2009 at 06:02  
Blogger Alan Douglas said...

Now why didn't I think of that all those years ago ? If I ever have to marry again, I will definitely have a token woman in my marriage.

Alan Douglas

Serntient WV : crasistr.

Harriet Harman : cry-sister ?

4 August 2009 at 07:05  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Alan it's not something you can decide to do in such a cavalier manner. You have to be born to it.
You know,to put it pc,to be endowed with the right DNA.

4 August 2009 at 08:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harriet Harman's Lies About Rape Exposed Today

13 August 2009 at 12:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older