Who will rid us of these turbulent non-comps?


What the smug feminist is looking like this year

There’s always a danger, upon turning a virulent solo blog multi-authored, that the original author, in becoming an administrator, must now be mindful of people’s feelings instead of just speaking the truth and if he’s, say, a tad outpoken as a rule about certain demographics, he now has to pussyfoot around with his words, losing, IMHO, his “artistic” integrity in so doing.

It’s effing frustrating at times.

Wiggia is a naughty boy because, though I’ve avoided the Mensch until now, he’s sent me a piece on her by Tom Winnifrith which has me growling and right on the point of launching into print, taking the silly cow apart. Sorry, sorry, shouldn’t have said that – sorry.

I’ll calm down. Sip the coffee.

OK, Louise effing Mensch is the embodiment of all that is wrong with womanhood.

Sorry, I’ll start again. Tom writes, in his post on her:

I have been wanting to write about Louise Mensch MP ever since I pointed out what a daft bint she was (here) a couple of weeks ago. I am delighted that she has presented me with an opportunity so soon. My desire to have another crack is partly driven by just how silly a person this MP is and partly because I was accused of misogyny in having a pop at her and Chloe Smith MP last time around.

Grrrr – don’t even mention the Chloe – young, hopeless, silly cow, completely tied up in her misandry, no life experience, ideologue …… OK, best let Tom continue:

These women both said stupid things. They are MPs. Should they be let off the hook because they are women? Regularly on this blog I stick the boot into MPs with no/minimal real life experience and who also spout piffle and/or waste taxpayers cash on themselves and others.

No Tom, they should NOT be let off the hook, just because they have mammary glands, though Mensch thinks she’s immune for that reason. They should be kicked in the upper lip with a steel-tipped toe-cap [try saying that after a night on the tiles]. Continue, Tom:

There is however one issue about the newer Tory female MPs. Call Me Dave was so desperate to show that his party had changed and was cuddly rather than nasty that he made great play on selecting women for winnable seats. As with any policy of affirmative action, the effect is likely to be that in order to make up quotas you get some fairly hopeless candidates getting through.

In terms of Mensch, the fact that in a profession, once described as show business for ugly people, she might be viewed as being reasonably fit, has done her no harm. She has benefitted from being a vaguely attractive woman.

Except when she puts on that stupid smile [top left]. Please, please, go on:

That should not stop her being lambasted when she spouts piffle. Au contraire … If Mensch et al do not like being attacked they should quit and do something else. Though they often forget it, MPs are our servants not our masters and as such we have every right to hold them to account.

Mensch’s latest “episode” came on Question Time last week when she argued that drugs should not be legalised because she had, in her youth, taken Class A drugs and it had messed with her brain.

Ah well … now that puts a different complexion on it. Here was I thinking she was just a silly cow, full stop, period, when in fact she’s just brain dead. My error. Fair enough, don’t kick the vulnerable while they’re down. Put her out to pasture and ’nuff said. I take back all the apoplectic things I said about her and let’s hear no more about it.

Now it appears Tom and I are not the only apoplectic ones about the Mensch. One commenter wrote:

Mensch is undoubtedly a class A hypocrite. If you read any of her novels they’re full of explicit, borderline kinky sex scenes …

Well actually, perhaps I’d best not get too far into that and fall into hypocrisy.

… mainly with the woman subjugated in some way.

Ah, well, the women in my stories hold their own, classy femmes and heroines that they are. They’re always more capable than the main protagonist, a bit like PG Wodehouse’s were, only nicer and more lovable. People say my works are fiction but I think they’re real life. Mensch continued:

They’re full of poundshop feminism and FIGHTING MALE DOMINANCE, and yet the woman is so hopelessly USELESS – unempathetic, misleading etc. I feel this is just the latest in a long line of things she says with no thought for truth, consequence nor moral worth – she will just say whatever she wants in her desperation to have the Tories approve of her.

Now that’s out of order. As everyone knows and Cherie and Moggsy point out – women, as a rule, are intelligent, always reason from research and facts, never think they’re always right, are not self-entitled, don’t want it all, have no sense of grievance, never get emotional and never go on witchhunts over who said nasty things about them.

Thanks for the photo, Boiling Frog

The Mensch, on the other hand, does all those things and therefore is to be smothered at birth and laid to rest in the retirement garden for MPs who are surplus to requirements – they’re opening a new field for their graves next week.

Apart from that, she’s OK to look at and I’d not say no if she weren’t married.


Witterings on Mensch


It’s not specifically the Mensch which is detested in PART 1, it is THE TYPE and that’s an important distinction. There’s one coming up on Ashton, with Nigel getting stuck into her.

The viewpoint of those who like everything to be nicy-nicy and all be good to each other, I’d agree with in principle.

That’s the ideal and in our personal dealings with one another in real life, we should be so as far as humanly possible [Desiderata]. Other people’s lives are their own affair and not for me to comment on when it doesn’t affect me.

When it does affect me though, very much so, then I’m going to comment and going to castigate.

Let’s pick out one of these non-comps from the pack and look at her. It’s Jodi Farhat. Being a parachutee and a non-comp, her primary directive in her own head was to 1. show she was boss 2. brook no opposition from line managers who’d been in the game forty years 3. demand respect from them, even though she knew diddly squat about her role 4. somehow atone for the fact that she had been parachuted in as one of a new, virulent, female managerial class whose only claim to fame is that they “manage”.

Except she doesn’t manage.   She flooded the Missouri Basin and caused untold damage to those caught below.

Like HR, with no integral knowledge of the area and flitting from job to job like a Fiorina or Dunn, she only wanted to be the chief, with no playing the indian at any point. The result, of course, was not only an inflated opinion of herself and let’s be honest – so many men have that too – but it’s combined with some of the worst female traits.

Again, there are infuriating male traits, yes there are, as have been lovingly listed by the feminists and that’s one of theirs in itself – listing the other person’s faults, never their own. Where the male is not going to brook opposition, he’s usually doing that from the point of view of having come up through the ranks. When he hasn’t come up through the ranks and he tries that on, then he’s not respected.

Male, female, works both ways.

The new female though adds a cutting edge – her eternal complex about being seen as an equal by others, especially men. Her worst enemy in this is other women.

So she’s up against it from the start and needs to constantly reaffirm to all just how competent she is and thus she’ll make decisions with that in mind. This also ties in with women’s confidence. Women who’ve done a job for decades have an easy confidence in it – my bosses have this in their area and no one questions it, least of all me.

So it’s not that I’m specifically against the female, something I feel Moggsy didn’t understand. When the working woman’s in a role where she does not have to justify herself all the time, then things are better, even though she still brings specifically female attitudes and reasoning to it.

Jodi Farhat – just look at that photo – was a non-comp from the start, just as Elizabeth Warren and Teresa Sullivan were. There is something about these ambitious women I can’t put my finger on but they’re the last ones who should be in charge. For a start, they’re carrying this baggage.

They take on board the worst traits of the men they’re trying to emulate as wheelers and dealers – they become caricatures. They’re dishonest and think nothing of it – especially Warren and Sullivan. They conduct witchhunts against anyone who differs from them and who grumbles.

They actually cause people to begin grumbling.

All the touted female qualities, such as being a team player, listening to people more, being softer and kinder – these laudable qualities are missing from these very silly women and all that is left is a battlefield with the worst female traits of all, including becoming shrill and vindictive under pressure.

And frankly, I won’t have a bar of it. It’s been written about by so many, including by women themselves. I’ve so many quotes by women not wishing to have a female boss for various reasons and the above are some of them. There are right bastards and right bitches but the latter have zero redeeming features. They’re lamentable “people”.

Allow me to introduce another Mensch type – her name is Margo Goodhand. That’s her to the left. Margo who, you may well ask?

Red River College in Winnipeg had a radio station, a good one by all accounts – it picked up awards etc.

Had a station. Now gone:

That silence is the bitter legacy of Winnipeg Free Press editor Margo Goodhand, whose interference in the running of KICK-FM led directly to the demise of the station which had been on the air almost 10 years.

It was only a couple of weeks ago when Margo Goodhand made the surprise announcement that she was resigning as of the end of July. She was, she said, leaving her sweet post for parts unknown after five years at the helm.

However she managed to stay around just long enough to see the irreparable damage that she caused to the radio station, to the reputation of the college, and, worst of all, to the integrity of the journalism course it offers.

The day of her resignation, newspaper publisher Bob Cox dutifully trotted out the expected accolades. “Under her guidance the Free Press was recognized repeatedly for its quality journalism and was named the best news organization in the country.”

There is the legerdemain, right there.

What in fact happened was that she came with a huge wrap. According to her CV, she was “distinguished alumni”, winning award after award and:

“Goodhand believes in the integrity of journalism and is an active mentor to journalists and students. She serves on the National Newspaper Board of Governors, the Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council, the John Dafoe Foundation Board of Governors and the President’s Advisory Council for the University of Manitoba.”

Appointee of the PTB, yes. Amazing how these particular non-comps attract awards and qualifications like fireflies, staying close to the PTB like a Brookes to a Murdoch. When men do that, it’s called brownnosing.

Part of that is the general feeling of chivalric admiration for a woman-who-does-good. People try to make it so and to continue it. I did precisely this with the girls in my charge in Russia and was so proud of them when they got on. The general prettiness and perceived softness of the female, the wiliness, doesn’t hurt either – let’s be honest. My own girlfriend used my experience and her looks to do it.

Teresa Sullivan

That’s not unfair. However, in Goodhand’s case, I’d be quite wary, were I to have her CV land on my desk, as the very first line is an assertion:

Margo Goodhand is a leader and a mentor. Through her great achievements she has made her mark in the world of journalism and in her local community.

Admittedly, it’s a CV and people talk themselves up in CVs. From the start. But what she did was inherit a fine radio station and then say it was fine on her watch, under her. Yes it was for a considerable period until her interference crippled it.  Five years to be precise.

So that goes into the CV as a plus for her – the association, of course, not the crippling.  The crippling is airbrushed out until it can no longer be so.

What she’s doing, in effect, is riding in on the back of other people’s efforts and skill, bolstering it with all sorts of awards from the PTB she’s been toadying up to [see Brookes and Murdoch/Cameron].

However, someone like her can only do this for so long, just as with Elizabeth Warren and Teresa Sullivan. Just as with Fiorina and Dunn. Just as with Farhat and Flint. Eventually the lack of talent, the dislocation from alienating the true talent in trying to co-opt their expertise and taking the accolades onself – eventually all that catches up. It always does.

Meanwhile, damage has been done, sometimes immeasurable and near-irreparable. Far from being the nice, kind mentor, she has been a vindictive bitch, this type, brooking no criticism whatever and going to great lengths to silence that criticism.

Goodhand oozed contempt for the host, Marty Gold, then dropped the hint that, er, the Free Press had contacted a lawyer about a defamation suit. In journalistic circles, they have a name for that sort of hint. Libel chill. It’s a cheap tactic to stifle free speech. Unless, of course, you’re the editor of a major city daily and threatening someone you think you can intimidate.

Isolated case? Please see Ezra Levant and Jennifer Lunch of the CHRC for an almost exact parallel.

Which brings up the next point – the arrogance of such women, not based on any genuine achievement whatever but very much based on deviousness and dishonesty. Combined with all the tricks of the trade – the put-down, the libel chill, the emotion when it suits.

When the National Post called Margo Goodhand for a comment on the furor over the cancellation of TGCTS, she did what you would expect the editor of a respected newspaper would do. She lied through her teeth. What talk show? Never listened. Gold? Who? Not me. Nothing to do with it. You got the wrong number.

It’s the dishonesty of these women which I think galls me the most. It truly does. There’s no human integrity in there. And when I write “these women”, I mean the type. Just the type. Not all women.

Over and over I need to reinforce that.


And so the story of Margo Goodhand goes on in that post. What is frightening is the parallels with all the other cases – it always follows the same pattern.

Look at Flint’s biscuits pettiness over here and the way her staff would deliberately smoke outside of her window, knowing she detested it.

‘Serving some biscuits with coffee is the default setting at the FCO for meetings and gatherings,’ said the official. ‘But with Caroline, instead of tea or coffee and biscuits, it was just tea or coffee.

‘The staff were just bemused by it. She would fly off the handle if it was ignored and someone smuggled a few biscuits in. I don’t think she had anything against any particular biscuits such as ginger snaps or Bourbons. It was all biscuits, full stop.’

Pettiness and vindictiveness, sadly, breeds pettiness and vindictiveness in those who should know better. These women create a feeling of detestation of them which must come as a huge shock to their sensibilities once they finally wake up.

Or perhaps they knew all along [see Harman below – that’s Lynch top left in the collage, by the way]. And what are they constantly on about, ad nauseam?

‘Maybe it’s naive, but I believe if we had a more inclusive style – more ministers working with one another and not in isolation; a government of equals – I believe we would look and feel more purposeful. The Prime Minister would look more effective.’

Wait for it, wait for it. Cloven hoof pops out:

‘Men are constantly written up by the political pundits on their potential – the rising stars. Women have constantly to work and work to prove their worth. ‘The Government can and should make better use of the talents of the many women in our party, locally and nationally.’

Perhaps, Caroline … but not your type, dear.   Someone with talent and without a chip on her shoulder might be another matter.   Such a person of talent would join the pool of men and women who have to do it the hard way and prove themselves based on their abilities.

So no, it’s not my “hatred for women” or that I don’t like women bosses as I have several of them in my work right now and they’re fine. It’s the parachutee who is the very worst kind of woman who is the problem and just like Black Rod and Tom Winnifrith, I’m going to call them out until we’re rid of the useless cows.

I make zero apology for my intemperate language whilst doing it.

7 comments for “Who will rid us of these turbulent non-comps?

  1. July 10, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Now then, in all fairness…..

    I take my hat off to radical feminists.



    They don’t like it.

  2. July 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    There’s definitely something wrong with their brains.

  3. Greg Tingey
    July 11, 2012 at 9:16 am

    EVERY single one of your so-called “arguments” was used to deny women the vote.
    And to deny women entry into the professions, and skilled highly technical jobs, like flying commercial aircraft ……

    But, then you are deluded enough to believe in BigSkyFairy, arn’t yoy?
    And we know what BigSkyFairy says about women – they should be subservient.
    Well, actually, they are PEOPLE, or hadn’t you noticed?

    J. Higham, fake libertarian.

    • July 11, 2012 at 10:04 am

      Love you too, Greg.

      Well, actually, they are PEOPLE, or hadn’t you noticed?

      Hitler and Stalin were technically PEOPLE too.

    • David A. Evans
      July 11, 2012 at 11:54 am

      J. Higham, fake libertarian.

      You obviously read a different post to the one I read.

      James is not against women, just a particular kind of woman and they are incompetent, having reached their position purely because they are women, not through ability.

      As I read it, James is also against men who reach their posts for a reason other than ability, perhaps eg. race or sexuality, just to make up the numbers

      Greg Tingey, non-reader.


      • Greg Tingey
        July 12, 2012 at 8:38 am

        Also, read what I wrote.
        Higham’s so-called “arguments” are identical to those used against women getting the vote, and all based on supposed physical or mental characteristics of thos women.
        ( Power-hungry / don’t know their place / lesbian / un-natural / etc ad nauseam …)

        Oh, and Higham has just done a Godwin-violation, so I claim victory, anyway!

  4. July 11, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Cheers for the link, James much appreciated

Comments are closed.