‘I Wish I’d Never Had My Daughter Because Climate Change’

Fotoholica/LightRocket via Getty

Some would say the mistake was having a daughter in the first place.

No, this isn’t the standfirst from an Onion parody of the kind of bleeding-heart, enviro-doom drivel they like to run every now and then in the New York Times.

This is an actual opinion piece from the actual New York Times, written by an actual English professor at the University of Notre Dame; an actual professor who presumably – this is where it gets really scary – teaches actual undergraduates…

His name is Roy Scranton.

Here is a taste of his jottings – together with my commentary. Painful though it may be, I think it’s important that we remind ourselves now and again of the idiocies which liberals read and swallow unquestioningly. It’s why the gulf between liberals and conservatives is so vast. And why, probably, there can never be peace between us because our truth and their “truths” might just as well exist in parallel universes.

Scranton:

I cried two times when my daughter was born. First for joy, when after 27 hours of labor the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.

Me:

You’re right. You should never have had a daughter. Not because of the climate change stuff – she’s not going to be affected by that non-problem any more than my daughter will. I mean that excruciating, overwritten bilge about “yowling” “feral” beings and – ew – “earth’s newest human.” No reader should ever have had to endure such puke-making mawkishness. Why did you do it to us? Why??

Read the rest at Breitbart.

The Head of Saatchi Just Surrendered to the Social Justice Warriors. Bad call…

Kevin Roberts, the top ad agency boss suspended from his job as chairman of Saatchi earlier this week for failing to show sufficient enthusiasm for promoting “gender equality” has now quit and apologised.

This was totally the wrong move (as I’ll explain in a moment) but I totally get why he chose to jump.

Which remotely self-respecting achiever would wish to prostitute his talents at a company which valued political correctness more highly than the bottom line?

Which alpha male could endure having to answer to blow-dried ponces like Maurice Levy, the smoothy-chops, silver fox French surrender monkey from Publicis Groupe who cravenly threw Roberts to the wolves rather than standing by his talent?

Which reasonable human being could possibly stomach having to work in a business so pullulating with grisly feminist harridans and emasculated Social Justice Warriors that merely telling the truth about the very obvious differences between men and women has become a sackable offence?

Just to recap, let’s remind ourselves what Kevin Roberts did to get himself into trouble.

At the weekend, he was invited by Business Insider to agree that there was a gender diversity problem within the advertising industry.

It cited the following evidence:

All of the six major advertising agency holding company CEOs are men. A survey conducted by The 3% Conference in 2014 found women make up 46.4% of the advertising industry, yet only 11.5% of creative directors within ad agencies are female.

But Roberts refused to play the game.

Women, he argued, mostly don’t want the top jobs men covet not because there’s a glass ceiling or because there’s institutional sexism but simply because women tend to have different priorities.

Roberts – clearly a forthright character who doesn’t believe in career-safe platitudes – said:

“So we are trying to impose our antiquated shit on them, and they are going: ‘Actually guys, you’re missing the point, you don’t understand: I’m way happier than you.’ Their ambition is not a vertical ambition, it’s this intrinsic, circular ambition to be happy. So they say: ‘We are not judging ourselves by those standards that you idiotic dinosaur-like men judge yourself by’. I don’t think [the lack of women in leadership roles] is a problem. I’m just not worried about it because they are very happy, they’re very successful, and doing great work. I can’t talk about sexual discrimination because we’ve never had that problem, thank goodness.”

What’s obvious from that statement is that Roberts is bending over backwards not to sound chauvinistic. He isn’t celebrating male machismo, aggression and overweening ambition: rather he is claiming to be embarrassed by it. Hence the phrases “antiquated shit” and “idiotic dinosaur-like men.” Women, he is suggesting, are actually a lot more sensible and better balanced than men.

But still, it isn’t enough to let him off the hook.

Using tactics straight out of the SJW playbook, the (female) journalist relays Roberts’s unexceptionable observation to a feminist campaigner called Cindy Gallop, whose speciality appears to be whining on social media about sexism in the workplace.

“I like to blow shit up. I am the Michael Bay of business,” declares her Twitter profile.

Gallop – refusing to accept the outrageous calumny that not all the female species want to behave like blokeish thugs and blow stuff up – provides the requisite rent-a-quote.

“The best response to that is to throw it open to the industry, and ask the women and men of the ad industry, all around the world, to tweet at @krconnect to let him know whether they think I’m ‘making it all up’.”

If you’ve read Vox Day’s SJWs Always Lie you’ll know this is a classic technique of the regressive left.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Women are great: they don’t need quotas | James Delingpole

February 9, 2012

Your new CEO?

I love women. Women are great. I’ve married one, I’ve personally bred one and I’ve got lots who are my friends. And after years of close observation, here’s what I’ve concluded: chicks are definitely the superior species. They’re more intuitive, more versatile, more articulate, more competent. Plus, of course, they have breasts.

Given that all this is so, I really don’t understand why David Cameron feels he needs to impose quota systems on boardrooms. Not for the reasons he gives anyway. I could understand it if he said: “Look, I have no shame, no principles, no moral or ideological core in my blubbery, spineless, Heathite body. My Coalition government is run by Lib Dems, a marketing man and focus groups. And what they all tell me is: “Suck up to the female demographic.” So that’s why I’m saying this crap.”

But that’s not what Cameron has said in Stockholm. He’s actually trying to claim that he’s doing it for the good of British business.

Government figures suggested that Britain’s slow progress was costing the economy more than £40 billion in lost potential each year, roughly equal to the defence budget.

Yeah right. I’m sure there are also “government figures” which suggest that green technologies will create millions of new jobs; “government figures” which suggest wind farms are a vital part of Britain’s energy package; “government figures” which suggest that a 50 per cent upper band tax rate is really healthy business.

Doesn’t make it so, though does it?

The argument for compulsory female quotas for boardrooms was neatly skewered in Standpoint by Jamie Whyte, in a column called Picking Losers.

The usual objection to such policies is that politicians are no good at “picking winners”, which is quite right. But those who bother to make this argument are being earnest dupes. The politicians themselves do not believe they have picked winners. If they did, rather than forcing others to make investments, they would make them themselves.

Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader and shadow culture secretary, goes even further. She claims employers discriminate against women and pay them less than they are really worth. By proposing to pass a law that imposes compulsory female quotas in boardrooms, she forgoes a wonderful business opportunity. She could start a business, hire all these brilliant but underpaid women and kick the butts of competitors that employ mediocre men at the same wages. Or Mr Cameron could let some of his mates know about the banks’ mistakes and they could make a killing lending to small businesses.

If you had the prescience that allowed you to pick winning Lotto numbers, would you pass a law forcing everyone to select those numbers? Would you even announce the numbers in public? Are you that selfless? Politicians who claim their bullying is merely an attempt to force unnoticed profit opportunities on to stupid business people would have us believe that they are.

Related posts:

  1. Honours quotas: why all mustn’t have prizes
  2. 20 Reasons Why Britain is Great
  3. Burqa ban: What Barack Obama could learn from Nicolas Sarkozy about Islam
  4. Spectator: Women can’t do comedy

3 thoughts on “Women are great: they don’t need quotas”

  1. Joekane says:14th February 2012 at 4:14 pmI have come across some real dickheads in my life but you take the biscuit. go and live in alabama where you belong!
    1. EricW says:14th February 2012 at 5:32 pmWhat did James say which is wrong?
  2. Stltimt says:18th February 2012 at 12:30 amJockane,

    I best you loved every on of those those dickheads, even the ones without the battery’s

Comments are closed.