Sunday, August 02, 2009

Why is Harriet Harman allowed to be so overtly sexist?

Just imagine for a second, if you will, that some senior male Tory, or a male CEO turned around and said the following,
“Women cannot be left to run things on their own."
What do you think the reaction of the Labour Party would be? What do you think some like Harriet Harman would say?

I ask this simply because today, Harriet Harman herself has given an interview to the Sunday Times in which see says you can't trust men to run things on their own. If there is one thing with identity politics that winds me up its this sort of intellectual contradiction.

Whether it's about gender, race or whatever, the binary definition of discrimination appears to only ever be one way traffic. Thus, whoever is considered the oppressor, it is impossible for their victim to be equally guilty of the discriminatory charges they level at them.

So, in the case of gender, for the like of Harriet Harman, it is women who the downtrodden. It is women who are subject to discrimination, and woe betide any man who says anything about women that could be considered a generalised statement. However, if a woman, like Harriet Harman, makes a generalised statement about men, then that's just peachy?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that woman don't get the shitty end of the stick in many cases. The hing that bothers me is how you can have someone allegedly in charge of "equality" coming out with statement that were they flipped on their head and said by the opposite sex, that very same person would have kittens and scream all sorts of merry hell about sexism.

No comments: