When it’s facts versus feminism at the Guardian, it’s down the memory hole with the truth

The one thing that you can rely on The Guardian to be is inconsistent. On Britain’s recent Royal Wedding they published one article celebrating Meghan Markle for being brown skinned and another  late last year criticising her for not being brown enough. Would it not be better to abide by Martin Luther King’s exhortation to judge people by the content of their character rather than their skin colour? But then I would say that being a privileged white male of impeccable character.

There was more predictable lunacy recently in the Guardian, from Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, who wrote an article praising the historian Dan Snow because he lied to his children by telling them that there were female spitfire pilots in the RAF during World War Two. Miss Cosslett thinks it’s a wonderful idea to lie to children about history if it doesn’t mirror the past the way she thinks it should have been. The article was published in The Guardian’s opinion section whose motto at the top of the page ironically reads, “comment is free…but facts are sacred.” Maybe the Guardian allows its feminist journalists living in the most gender equal countries in the world, with successful careers in one of the hardest industries to gain entry, to disavow the sacredness of facts to compensate for the oppressive patriarchy they live under?

This desire to erase facts from the past to promote a particular political narrative is also a hallmark of totalitarian states. It is also reminiscent of the memory hole in Orwell’s dystopian novel ‘1984’, where facts are erased from history if they don’t adhere to the approved political narrative of the state.

However, the worst aspect of this article is that both Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Dan Snow are belittling the fact that British women contributed significantly to the war effort by working as nurses, in munitions factories and at the forefront of agriculture in charge of running farms across Britain. The implication of Miss Cosslett’s article is that female farmers, nurses and factory workers are somehow less valuable members of society than male fighter pilots.  If anything it is Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and Dan Snow who are the ones being sexist.

If Miss Cosslett viewed these women as equally important contributors to the war effort then she wouldn’t have been able to write her whinging article for the Guardian. I suspect though that if your living depends on you finding sexism everywhere then the chances are you will. 

This modern obsession with fifty fifty gender representations is imbued with a degree of class snobbishness which is why the debate is only ever limited to middle and upper middle class roles. You will never hear a feminist arguing for gender parity in traditional working class jobs done by either men or women. I challenge anyone to find me a feminist campaigning for more female refuse collectors or fifty fifty gender quotas for warehouse assistants or supermarket cashiers. This whole gender imbalance debate makes no allowances for the fact that gender disparities in various employment sectors (many that favour women) continue to occur as a result of the choices that men and women freely make in western countries which have high levels of equality of opportunity between the sexes. In fact, Norway, which is one of the most gender equal states in the world, has found that when you give men and women complete equality of opportunity they tend to gravitate, on average, towards traditionally male or traditionally female jobs, as evidenced in the brilliant documentary, “The Gender Equality Paradox”. It is full of the kinds of facts that in the vernacular of the post modernist left people like Dan Snow and Rhiannon Lucy Scott would find ‘problematic.’

Why do so many people still harbour the delusion that equality means men and women have to be the same? Surely, true gender equality should celebrate the differences between the sexes and proportion equal value to the roles both play in society.

This article was originally published at AR Devine: an alt-liberal perspective

2 Comments on "When it’s facts versus feminism at the Guardian, it’s down the memory hole with the truth"

  1. Graeme Haycroft | 14/12/2018 at 8:51 am |

    As a matter of interest there were many women “spitfire” pilots. Who do you think delivered the planes from the factories to the air fields? They flew them there. I don’t however believe there were any female combat pilots.

  2. Andrew Russell | 14/12/2018 at 3:11 pm |

    A good piece, but I have to disagree with your interpretation of the Gender Equality Paradox.

    You’re right that in Nordic nations where there lots of “women in STEM” and similar “get women into male dominated (prestigious) fields” efforts alongside with a large and influential feminist movement, men and women still make different choices.

    However I think you need to keep in mind the other side of the Gender Equality Paradox: nations like Iran and other rather brutal and truly misogynist societies have quite a disproportionate number of women in STEM.

    If the Gender Equality Paradox in Norway and Sweden were explicable purely in terms of biological differences between the sexes, we wouldn’t see so many young women in Iran going into STEM fields.

    I think the obvious reality is that the so-called “Gender Equality Paradox” is misnamed. Nations in the West are feminist but don’t really have gender equality. Rather, they have a situation where a powerful women’s empowerment movement demands that women should be liberated from traditional gender restrictions, but essentially insists men remain in their traditional role of provider/protector of women. In other words, a woman can adopt any feature of a traditionally masculine lifestyle she wishes, to the level she personally finds satisfying, but at the same time can depend on all the traditional protections and privileges traditionally afforded to the female sex. Men, on the other hand, have no choices and are still socially compelled to be complete full-time careerists with no work-life balance.

    So the reason men in the west remain doing what they’ve always been doing? Because society hasn’t loosened up any of the pressure on them. They’re still faced with the same set of social incentives to be full time careerists in high stress fields. Women in the west, however, now have the option to take on any career they choose, and not surprisingly they tend to choose flexible-time low-stress careers with high levels of personal satisfaction, face no social penalty for doing so, and are still able to depend on a primary-breadwinner partner subsidizing their lifestyle.

    This also explains why truly, genuinely misogynist nations will often have a lot of women in STEM. The incentives these women face are pretty bleak; they have to either work hard in a stressful field they may not personally find fulfilling but can use as a method to escape to the West and live a free life, OR they submit to their arranged marriage to a distant cousin and resign themselves to bearing his children.

    The reality is that men in the west and women in misogynist nations “man up” because they have to. Women in the west, on the other hand, pick a lifestyle based upon personal fulfillment because they can afford to.

Comments are closed.