There ARE differences

This is basically a reply from another post, hereby depersonalized and addressing the issue only. It’s crossposted from my place, as it seems to be a quiet day for posts so far.

The old ways are no longer needed – or are they?


There are differences between men and women, left and right, black and white, good and bad, hetero and gay, earth, water and sky. There ARE differences and to smooth out those differences, whilst a commendable sentiment, is not to eliminate them. In fact, to put them to one side or cover them up, paper them over, however one wishes to put it, is a recipe for disaster.

To force through an ideological system which imposes false constructs on people, when those constructs do not take on board the differences, is insanity or evil or both.

Just as there is the principle of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so there is the principle of not tolerating EVERYTHING, good and bad.


There ARE clear differences in the way men and women tackle things – not 100% of the time obviously because typing something into a computer or pushing this, phoning that person – these are done equally and “the same” by both.

On a given working day, differences hardly arise, depending on the nature of the work – until decisions are made. Then the differences really do come out.

There are critical areas where I’m afraid this blog and many others have shown categorically that to ignore those gender differences can be and often is quite unefficacious.

There are far fewer differences between right-leaning women and their male counterparts in the political sphere, e.g. Julia M, Goodnight Vienna, Sue of Muffled Vociferation etc. That’s true but even if there are fewer differences than with, say, the socialist/globalist placewomen Zenna Atkins or Harriet Harman, right-leaning men and women are actually happy to accept “equal but different”. We have no problem with that because it’s bleedin’ obvious we’re different.

Women are very quick to point out the differences when it comes to female intuition, multi-tasking etc. and some ameliorate that, muddy the waters by saying there are men too, of course, who can multi-task. That cuts no ice because it’s quite clear what the point was.

Yet when there’s a seeming negative about the woman, then suddenly differences do not exist. It’s trying to have it both ways, trying to occupy the entire moral high ground without conceding any faults, any negative traits and common sense indicates that that’s patently not so that women have no limits.

In trying to do it all and have it all, this happens, for a start:

There are areas women should not be in and many women are now writing about this now around the globe, obviously men will agree on the whole and it must hurt feminists very badly for this to happen after they thought they’d killed off gender differences altogether.

They felt there were no gender differences and then went about involving the state in imposing this view, all mixed together with a perception that women were about peace and equality and tolerance and fairness between the sexes but all it’s done is create today’s situation of very deep resentment from the new oppressed – men – and consequent resentment by women of men not embracing the new order and the new workplace.

Perhaps many women never saw beyond the end of their purses, never thought for a moment that there might be consequences.

I’ve warned many times that this is going to rebound. Whereas the backlash in the political world will involve demonstrations, riots etc., arrests, incarceration and so on, the backlash against women will be more subtle and is already visible in the increased rapes and violence on women and in the utter lack of respect between the sexes.

The backlash is just a reassertion, by men, of their natural roles as they’ve been for millennia. It is simply happening because it’s the natural order for it to happen.

I have argued constantly on this blog that it does not mean “men are superior”, not in any way. I’ve argued “equal and opposite”, “equal and different”. I’ve put forward women who were, in no way, shape or form subservient to a man and this evening, I’m going to run the music of one of these [admittedly I’ve fallen in love with her]. Women can do it, they are equal in many ways and superior in others, inferior in others but the bottom line is that they ARE different.

Men and women are meant to be a partnership which can become a whole. Both contribute in different ways. Cliches like the nurturing female and the protective male have substance because they persist, because they’re real, they’re eternal. The sad fact is that many women and men have had their ability to discern, to see common sense, twisted out of them by corrosive education which has lost its way.

The left has been hellbent in eradicating differences as cliches but the truth is – they’re not cliches, they’re truisms.

When all the little truisms were recognized as such, then the society functioned quite well, give or take things which got in the way, e.g. socialism. By and large though, people were employed, had roofs over their heads and there was bread on the table.

Part of the change in that, apart from sheer population growth, has been the socialist disease, including the radical women’s movement which hijacked simple grievances women had before and put these absurdities we have today.

The hostility between the sexes is on a sliding scale. At a minimum, snide remarks are made. In its worst form, there is rape, assault and utter lack of respect and it cuts both ways.

Socialism should have smoothed these out by now but it hasn’t – quite the opposite. Left and right – here again, there are distinct differences, there definitely IS a leftist mindset.

The light at the end of the tunnel might well be an oncoming train

Left and right

Last evening, a chap at OoL, nemesis, gave a link to Vaclav Klaus and that’s almost my point of view on this subject. So let me just quote it and let it stand:

Illiberal ideas are becoming to be formulated, spread and preached under the name of ideologies or “isms”, which have – at least formally and nominally – nothing in common with the old-styled, explicit socialism. These ideas are, however, in many respects similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest “enforcement of a good” by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.

Enforcement of a good is really quite close to it. When someone sees a “good”, this is followed, on the left, by an ideology which will see it established, so they think. This is different to seeing a problem and solving it in a micro way. This involves totality solutions, e.g. rewriting the history books so that this ideology is taught to a new generation, whether or not it is correct and whether or not it is embraced by the population as a whole.

It is believed by the left that:

1. because it’s correct;
2. that correctness is because they are always correct,

… then it’s fine to charge ahead and implement it over the top of any objections, which are seen either as misinformed or malicious or stemming from the stages of society where those unreconstructed people are at the time.

Now, on this I claim some expertise, having been a Fabian and knowing precisely what goes on at those meetings and what is formulated and planned, despite all the ideological splintering which inevitably goes on. In other words, I was heading for being a Fabian intellectual but something went “wrong”.

You might like to read this:

Loving everyone

There is a sector in the community who reject the things the right constantly goes on about because no one wishes to be associated with toxic brands or even philosophies. The dropping of marxism from the menu has been just such a move.

Much safer to go on about tolerance and equality but always the same spectre arises from left-thinking people and Vaclav Klaus touched on that above. This new “small l” left is not into “politics” per se – in fact politics is a dirty word now, it’s only disgruntled old men with hatred in their hearts who keep going on about what’s wrong in our society. In fact, on the surface, it looks as if left and right are now the same – all of us just wanting a happy life to live with our families and travel and have a drink at dinner etc., to explore nature and lovely things.

What is ignored is that by failing to address the root causes of destructive things in society, [see Edmund Burke], one half of these people are quietly aiding and abetting them. So, under the guise of “tolerance”, the gay mafia is allowed into schools to speak with kids of 5 and 6. As one lady said on Saturday, children should be left alone to grow up free of all these things and if parents would assume their proper roles, the kids might just do that.

There are many people out there who believe that, because they want liberty to do anything they want, that somehow this means getting into schools and imposing their own lifestyle on kids who are in no position to discern one way or the other.

If you say religion shouldn’t be imposed on kids, then neither should sexuality or politics and yet they ARE being imposed and teachers are letting it happen, they themselves at their wits end over parents who refuse to parent.

This is not moving on or being “progressive” – this is regressive and headed for a destroyed society.

When tolerance is bad

“A time to refrain from embracing …”

It’s this tolerance of evil, under the mistaken notion that to tolerate means to tolerate good and bad equally – this is what is causing untold damage. It’s relativism, a coercing into sameness – unisex, uni-thought, uni-action.

And people with this mindset are actually criminal in their ignoring of what’s happening and why. They see themselves as the loving, caring, nurturing ones and that that is contributing to the good of society but in fact it is the opposite – it’s the angry and seemingly “not nice” ones who have the return of society to sane values in their hearts.

Do you think we don’t want peace, freedom, goodwill, good cheer and good company? Do you think we don’t want to go about our lives as we would like, not hurting anyone and showing respect to all? Yet we’re not allowed to because evil men and women and the good men and women who are aiding and abetting them by their blindness are making it impossible for us to live this life we all want.

There IS a divide in political thinking between people and if one rejects the label “left”, then we just revert to the longwinded explanation given by Klaus above. Either way, there is most certainly a difference. The only way to undo the damage done to the last two generations is for a concerted effort, starting with schools, to bring back the traditional, without the draconian elements to it.

That’s the society we need to get back to and if you disagree, that’s fine because I’m not for the government forcing you to accept my point of view – there’s been too much of that the other way around from those on the left.


I made reference above to a Mail article. Comments from that Mail article on women’s depression:

Someone said it’s greed. Sorry but I have to agree with them. These women could get part time jobs or stay home & look after their children themselves. They’d save a fortune on childminders for a start. Why cant people be happy with what they can afford? I saw a programme where couples were ‘struggling’ & getting depressed due to cost of living. These people lived in big houses, had childminders or nannies, cleaners, big holidays & big cars. Move to a smaller house, clean it yourself, give up a car (don’t need two), look after your own kids. Why are people obsessed with having to have everything? Someone else said people cant survive on one salary like they did 30-40 yrs ago. They could if they lived within their means as they did then. People didn’t strive to have it all in those days. They were happy with what they could afford. Depression? Bah! Most of them just fed up with the debt they have got themselves in. Deal with it! Don’t burden the NHS.

– anon1411, Hampshire

Toxic feminism – had enough yet?? Ladies you’ve been had modern feminism is nothing to do with equality it has everything to do with twisting your values out if shape portraying men as the enemy and destroying the family unit in exchange for material gain – no partner and an empty life. Time to follow your heart instead of this garbage

– kuryakin, uk

As previously mentioned, most families now need a woman’s income to meet increasingly high bills, mortgage payments etc. It is also not difficult to understand why women get depressed when having to juggle all their different roles in life, and without wishing to generalise, some husbands do not pull their weight when it comes to domestic responsibilities. Additionally, many modern women do not wish to rely on their husband for ‘handouts’ if they are the sole breadwinner. It is often the case that the major income provider in a relationship ‘controls’ many aspects of the relationship which can lead to resentment and marital difficulties. It appears that some of the male posters here would wish to subjugate women through some antiquated and misplaced feeling of superiority. Fortunately we have moved on from the 1950s and the quaint advice offered on how to be the ‘perfect housewife’.

– D.Dawson, London

There are two comments I need to make:

1. There is a bit of truth in all of those statements. Yes, women had issues in the 60s which needed resolving, yes the early feminists drew attention to those but then didn’t stop, yes women can get part-time jobs men can’t. Yes, none of this would be happening if women would rein in their “I want it all” demands.

2. On the other hand, there is the price/wage disconnect. It is simply not viable for a family, even a proper family with a father and mother, for one income to do the job. The disconnect has become too great for anything less than one and a half times a wage. This means women must work, irrespective of wanting to and there are all sorts of reasons for this, as you know:

a. Credit – banks have been extremely naughty in issuing credit where it simply should not be offered and it’s pandered to people’s greedy eyes of aspiration beyond their means. This is about to be paid for big time and it won’t be the banks who’ll suffer. This has driven up prices to stupid proportions.

Banks, when all is said and done, work in a market. If women were to do no more than part-time work and men were to work full-time, then the price spiral would collapse, it couldn’t be sustained. If everyone stayed within their means and paid their credit cards off in full at the end of each month, same thing. If no one would permit him/herself to go into debt, same thing.

b. Aspirations – when a second car and second television are seen, not as poverty or their rightful due but as something which lower income people cannot afford, when those people either try for higher income positions or else accept their lot, then this kills off the price spiral because the market simply won’t support such price inflation.

Part of this is women reining in their aspirations and accepting what they should be doing. There was a perfectly workable system where the woman working was for two reasons:

[i] to provide supplementary income for the little things in life;

[ii] to give her some independence and even her own little nest egg, should the partnership eventually be broken – usually by the death of the man. He would be doing similarly – providing savings for the family, should he depart.

Those were proper goals and the moment women come back at this and say how dare I try to undo all they’ve gained, I say no, you haven’t gained. You’ve gained in the short term, in some delusion of empowerment but it has not empowered you – it’s ultimately done the opposite and brought society to its knees in the process – it’s helped with that in a big way. We’re all going to find that out next year [or at the end of this one].

For women to say this is just the moaning of a now dispossessed man who doesn’t like getting a taste of his own medicine and we don’t need men anyway because we have IVF and the whole society now supports women in careers – I say this is unsustainable. You can’t keep men out of work for long because you create a new underclass and if you think you can rule that from your citadels with some sort of paid army – men v men, this is a dystopia which cannot last, any more than the huge debt the socialists and globalists have induced [see Darling’s comments on Brown not accepting reality] could last.

Everyone knows it can’t last. What I’m writing here is not original – many others are saying it. It’s unpalatable but it’s true for all that.

Perhaps we could just sit and think this one through

2 comments for “There ARE differences

  1. September 5, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Thanks! It needed saying and especially needed saying right now.

  2. September 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Something just through:

    The intellectual left considers the majority of Britain to be completely unable to form its own opinions and are therefore terrified that the any message that is not their own might find its way into the conscious of the populous. Their solution to this ‘problem’ is simply to silence it. Demanding the restriction of freedom of speech is arguably just as fascist a tendency as anything the BNP have advocated. How’s that for irony?

Comments are closed.