The quarterly WHTM Pledge Drive continues! If you appreciate this blog, and can afford it, please click the “donate” button below. Thanks!
Leave it to Canada’s most enthusiastic Trump fan who doesn’t think women should be allowed to vote to come up with perhaps the most ingeniously ludicrous theory about Brexit that has been set forth so far.
In a post on her JudgyBitch blog, Andrea Hardie (aka “Janet Bloomfield”) tries her hand at political pop psychology, MRAsplaining the popularity of the “Remain” vote among younger British voters as the result of their being raised by single mothers.
No, really. As Hardie sees it, young Brits hunger for a political substitute for the daddy they never had in real life — and have found their ideal father figure in the European Union, of all
people international entities.
Hardie dismisses the legitimate concerns younger Brits have about Brexit — concerns that happen to be shared by economists, investors, the agencies that rate the credit-worthiness of government bonds, and Chuck Tingle — pretending instead that millennial Brits are just whiny brats upset that Brexit might ruin their vacation plans.
Or, as Hardie puts it, in her inimitable style,
Oh, boo hoo. I want to go to Spain for the weekend and I’ll need to find my passport, boohoo I’m so oppressed…. Essentially, it amounts to ‘I will experience a tiny bit of inconvenience and I am far too precious for something as horrifying as inconvenience.’
But the real driver of the “Remain” vote amongst the young, Hardie suggests, is their daddy hunger.
Remain says ‘I miss my real Daddy but you’ll do, EU’.
Is it really surprising that the generation raised by proud single mothers, the generation more likely to have a smart phone than a dad who lives in the home with them, is crying out for the boundary setting paternalism of the EU? What is the EU other than the Daddy substitute most modern liberal democratic governments represent?
I’m pretty sure that the EU is actually “a union of European nations created by treaty and put into effect in 1993 for the purpose of working gradually toward an economic and political unification of Europe by means of a unified monetary policy, a common currency, standardized laws of commerce and trade, etc.”
Also, there is no “generation raised by proud single mothers.” The overwhelming majority of children in the UK are raised in two-parent homes.
After depositing her first lump of nonsense on Daddy EU, Hardie takes a moment to remind us just how bad it is that women are allowed to vote.
Recall that after suffrage, the first thing women voted for was lifetime alimony – all the benefits of being married, but none of the responsibilities, and women have continued to vote to replace personal, family bonds with government ones.
Then, in an impressive display of sophistry, she pivots back to Daddy EU:
Now women have done one better, and raised a generation of whimpering, weak-minded, responsibility averse, perpetually aggrieved moaners for whom the need to make difficult, complex choices is always someone else’s responsibility. In the case of Brexit, that’s the EU.
Er, what? I’m having a teensy bit of a problem figuring out how the complicated matrix of international agreements that underpins the EU has anything to do with the personal responsibilities of twentysomething Brits. Are the youth of Britain deciding to drink even more heavily on weekends than the youth of Britain traditionally have because they think Big Daddy EU is going to send a car to make sure they get home safe and sound?
This is a generation raised in daycare centers because Mommy was too busy cooking, cleaning or caring for others for money, and so plagued with guilt that junior’s every whim was indulged immediately, all while Daddy was either torn from the home or so emasculated he needed written permission to touch his own balls.
Yeah, I don’t think that last bit is a thing outside of Femdom fetishism.
Brexit is just the beginning. Leave is often cast as ‘rejecting the liberal world order’, but what they have really rejected is the female world order.
The … female world order? Here’s a picture of the European Parliament.
I’m pretty sure most of those people are dudes.
Women, (mis)led by feminists, have shackled the traditional powers of both men and women and tried to replace them with Big Daddy government.
Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn’t make it any more true.
The EU is under attack from Islamic invaders, once civil societies now have rape and crime rates that rival the world’s biggest cesspools, the economy is rigged to deliver returns principally to shareholders and not workers, and the global elite have eaten naïve politicians pandering to irrational women voters alive.
The West is on the brink of collapse, and the adults in the room are finally reaching their limits.
And apparently, at least in Hardie’s mind, the best solution to a world on the brink of collapse is to … push it off a cliff?
In Canada ><
Might be only my fellow Brits get this 🙂
In my opinion, no. It is not illegal to poop on her lawn.
John Barry, Don Black
Born free, as free as the wind blows
As free as the grass grows
Born free to follow your heart
Live free, and beauty surrounds you
The world still astounds you
Each time you look at a star
Stay free, where no walls divide you
You’re free as a roaring tide
So there’s no need to hide
Born free, and life is worth living
But only worth living
Cause you’re born free!
I understand that Boris Johnson looked pale and shaken the morning after the vote. Be careful what you campaign for. . . .
I am very sure that the ideal outcome for Johnson, the one he really wanted, was a narrow win for Remain.
That way he would have had absolutely no political and economic nuclear fallout to deal with, and could present himself as the true champion of the British people when he stood for leader of the Tory party.
It would also, laugh-through-gritted-teeth enough, have been the best outcome for the UK in its negotiations with the EU (“ooh, look at our scary scary brexit vote – they nearly won! Give us EVEN MORE SPECIAL STATUS EXEMPTIONS AND LET US PICK EVEN MORE CHERRIES or we might have to leave, oo-er!). This is what Johnson and his sleazy racketeers really wanted. He would have painted himself as the man who managed to get what Cameron couldn’t.
As it is, of course, we have just blithely thrown away every last scrap of our special-snowflake exemptions and will be “negotiating” with practically no cards in our hand at all. As a nation, we deserve it – the sad thing is that inevitably, as usual, the poorest regions and individuals – not the people who told the lies, but a great many of the people who fell for them – will be the ones actually paying the price in job-losses and welfare cuts, while the Bullingdon boys and the pedlars of lies are personally completely unscathed.
Oh, and I just found out today that one of my siblings (the richest one) is a brexiter. Fucking great.
Indeed. It’s so funny that the highest office in the land is now being treated as a ticking time-bomb of dog excrement.
As you probably know Boris only sought to stuff Cameron. Even his dad (who was both an MEP and a member of the EU Commission) dropped him in it the other night by pointing out that Boris, like the rest of the family, was until a few months ago a committed Europhile. And Michael Gove’s wife has revealed he went to bed quite contentedly expecting a ‘remain’ vote, then she had to wake him up with “I think you need to switch on the TV”.
Still, it all seems to be settling down now. It’s just a matter of face saving. I think Juncker will end up being the sacrificial lamb on this one.
ETA: Ninja’d by Opposable Thumbs who’s got it spot on.
Well, that was Freudian.
Actually I’m getting the feeling this sibling has swung so far right it’s depressing. Like I wasn’t feeling down enough already :-\
Eh, we haven’t been close for years. It’s still sad to get concrete evidence that someone you grew up with has become someone you don’t know at all 🙁
Many a true word spoken in jest. Boris has just ruled himself out as Prime Minister.
Alan, just wondered if you had any thoughts on this article about the legality or otherwise of implementing the referendum result:
@ opposable thumbs
Heh, you must be psychic; was just reading that.
It verges into “so wrong it’s not even wrong” territory. I was just digging out some relevant cases; but most of the commentators have already picked it to pieces.
To cover his main points:
Courts will not interfere or allow judicial review of manifesto commitments; whatever the underlying motive.
The making or breaking of treaties is within the gift of the Sovereign and therefore the Prime Minister of the day can exercise the power through the Royal Prerogative.
It’s a principle of legal interpretation that “Parliament never legislates in contradiction of its treaty obligations”. So there’s no need for a vote to remove the European Community Act. If Article 50 is invoked then it will be subject to ‘implied repeal’.
There are some really interesting legal and constitutional points thrown up by this whole mess, but not the ones in the article. 🙂
Ah, does that mean there’s actually no way MPs could obstruct invocation of Art 50, then – even assuming enough of them want to?
@ opposable thumbs
Whether there’s no way is one of the constitutional issues that people have been discussing.
The referendum result is technically only advisory; but it does give the PM the power to serve the notice should she* want to.
Theoretically MPs could table a vote of no confidence in the government and then if successful there’d be a general election and a new government could be elected on a ‘not serve the notice’ platform (I think down the line that’s exactly what will happen) but such a course takes time and there’s nothing they could do to stop the PM serving the notice in the interim.
Similarly tabling legislation prohibiting the serving of the notice would also take too long; assuming they could even get the votes to do that.
Most MPs are remainers but only David Lammy has suggested trying to overturn the referendum result itself. In an atmosphere where so many people are saying ‘politicians disregard our views’ MPs have recognised that they need to be seen to at least take the result seriously.
There doesn’t seem to be any great enthusiasm to actually serve the notice though on any side, so I anticipate there’ll be a general election before it ever is (and I doubt it will be)
[* I’ve revised my opinion about Theresa May’s chances]
What I don’t get, is the “child in daycare, mum plagued with guilt” part. Where I live in Europe, daycare is pretty common, most people (including those who are professionals in developement-psychology) think that it is a good thing for the kid too.
So nut much guilt is present overall, at most there the “poor thing, those first two weeks were pretty awful for them” kind.
I’m really genuinely curious: is it a common belief in North-America, that daycare-kids mothers should feel guilt, or is it only the part of the MRA bullshit?