The hypocrisy of suffrage

Today marks 100 years since women were given the vote – admittedly only those over 30 but it was a start.

Let me be quite clear. I applaud equality for women in all things. Equally I condemn the hijacking of the word ‘feminist’ to mean more than equality and for it’s use in what has become the ‘War on Men’. Hence, as a lover of equality, I was unimpressed with this mornings offerings on breakfast TV.

On the one channel was Amber Rudd having what was quite an intelligent conversation with Piers Morgan. Morgan feels the same as I do. He supports equality between the sexes and abhors the hijacking of feminism. Rudd was commenting on the push to pardon all suffragettes. Rather sensibly, she said that she would look at each case on it’s own merits but condemned campaigners who broke the law by, for example, setting fire to buildings. These, as she rightly poiints out, are law breakers not law makers.

On the other side – good old Al BBCeera – was Harriet Harman. I have little respect for her and it diminishes every time she opens her mouth. Harriet was banging on about underrepresentation in Parliament because there are still more men than women. She supported the use of female only selection lists to address this ‘unacceptable situation’

What dear Harriet fails to understand is that you cannot bleat about sexual inequality in the House and then use sexual inequality to ‘solve the problem’. This is sheer hypocrisy. You cannot exclude either sex in order to have equal sexual representation. It’s simply illogical.

You could argue that constituency short lists should contain equal numbers of men and women and that the selection committee should be composed of equal numbers of men and women. The best person is then selected.

The Labour Party on the other hand would exclude men like Churchill, Atlee, Disreali, Wilson, Blair – some of our most noted PMs – and many others on the basis that they are not women and therefore wouldn’t qualify to apply.

It makes no sense and, I believe, the suffragettes themselves would have agreed that two wrongs don’t make a right…

…not even in the modern Labour Party


6 responses to “The hypocrisy of suffrage

  1. ” Blair – some of our most noted PM”
    Not sure I would consider Blair as ‘notable’, ‘notorious’ maybe.

  2. Interesting. Sometimes when the law is unjust, lawbreakers are required in order to make change happen. I don’t know enough about women burning houses a hundred years ago to comment, but I do know that it often requires serious action to change fundamentally unjust laws

    • Careful. The IRA would use the same argument…

      • buckothemoose

        Indeed. And they would think themselves correct in doing so. It’s not an easy one. But if the Government are acting unjustly, why should the people follow the laws they laid down?

      • ‘Tis a matter of degree, surely?

        Ghandi’s idea of non-violence, together with non-cooperation and general civil disobedience can produce the desired result, However, it can be slow and needs to be widespread with very many participants.

        Bombing and violence, however…

        Yet followers of either path can be described as “lawbreakers.

First comments must be approved - but after that you're in !

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s