You know how you watch an unfurling catastrophe, shouting “Noooo!” in helpless frustration? I speak here of events such as watching your best friend getting involved with a Train Smash Woman, or a lady friend taking up with a rancid Bad Boy, or another friend announcing with pride that he’s just put down a deposit on a Ferrari or cabin cruiser.
You know it’s all going to end horribly, with pain, tears and destruction in various forms, but you’re helpless to prevent it happening.
A crown green bowls club which has never allowed women to join as full members in its 100-year history is set to vote on whether to admit them.
Ilkley Bowling Club has about 1,700 full members, all of whom are eligible to vote in the ballot at the West Yorkshire spa town’s King’s Hall on March 3.
Women can only enter the bar of the club – which was founded in the early 1920s – as guests of members, and are banned completely during the week.
The main bar area – where a pint of beer costs less than £2 – is an entirely male preserve on weekdays and women are permitted to drink as ‘associates’ after 5pm from Friday to Sunday and on bank holidays.
Their mistake was in allowing female members in the first place, and allowing women onto the premises at all.
It’s not helped by the fact that lawn bowls is a game at which women are generally on a par with men in ability (see description here). But a bowling club is not just about the game, is it? Without the womyns, Ilkley B.C. would most probably be a happy place, where men can drink to excess, swear like troopers and in general act like the hooligan which lies not far beneath the surface of all of us.
If they open up membership to include the other sex, that will all change. I know that if I were a member, I’d resign if they did — as I would in any men-only club of which I was a member.
Working at an office is bad enough; but working at an office and being discouraged from talking to one’s workmates is awful. Yet that’s just what this harpy is suggesting:
Ann Francke, head of the Chartered Management Institute, has said that bosses should actively curtail male staff talking about football, cricket and rugby in case women feel ‘left out’ at work.
‘A lot of women, in particular, feel left out. They don’t follow those sports and they don’t like either being forced to talk about them or not being included. I have nothing against sports enthusiasts or cricket fans – that’s great. But the issue is many people aren’t cricket fans’. She added: ‘It’s very easy for it to escalate from VAR talk and chat to slapping each other on the back and talking about their conquests at the weekend. It’s a gateway to more laddish behaviour and – if it just goes unchecked – it’s a signal of a more laddish culture’.
And in an even-more horrifying development, I am forced to agree with Piers Morgan, who said:
‘What utter twaddle. We’ve got to stop these virtue-signalling cretins sucking all the fun out of life’.
And then the inevitable response:
Critics have said that by applying the same logic non-work related chat about TV shows such Love Island, EastEnders and Game of Thrones should also be curtailed. While others asked if workers with children could be stopped from talking about them in case it offends those without them.
Yeah… let’s just stop all non-work chatter altogether. If it’s not work-related, then HR should have the power to swoop in and… do what? Fire the offenders? Have them flogged in the public square? Have them endure yet another hectoring lecture from HR? [Cries of “No, no! Anything but that! Please flog me instead!”]
I’m 59 and haven’t hit menopause – and it’s all down to great sex!
Great Caesar’s Scabby Phallus… do we have to have yet another unbearable Baby Boomer’s revelations about the Joys Of Sex? Can’t we all just agree that sex is great, and stop talking about it all the time?
I need my breakfast gin, ran out over the weekend, and the bloody booze shops don’t open for two hours yet. Everybody take shelter.
I have always pressed for a relationship where the men and women have clearly-defined roles — and preferably, one where the man is the earner and dominant partner, while the woman takes care of the home and children. Needless to say, the feministicals come after men like me, spitting and clawing, and spouting bullshit about the “patriarchy” and (in times past) “male chauvinist” etc.
Now, after all the feministical nonsense, we finally seem to have something of a return to sanity:
Amid the Me Too movement and radical feminism, a new opposing trend has emerged across Britain – the ‘tradwife’ trend.
Harking back to 1950s Britain, and already established in the US, the trend sees women reverting to the traditional roles of housewives, practiced in the fifties and sixties.
The belief behind the movement is that wives should not work, and rather spend their days cooking, cleaning, wearing modest and feminine dress, and practice traditional etiquette, being submissive to their husbands and ‘always put them first’.
“Tradwife”… okay, I can live with the term. I could (and do) happily live with someone who believes in it. Even better is this perspective:
‘My view on feminism is that it’s about choices. To say you can go into the working world and compete with men and you’re not allowed to stay at home -to me is taking a choice away’.
Distancing herself from the movement’s right-wing links, she argued: ‘Being a tradwife is investing in your family and being selfless. So I would say the opposite of that is someone who is selfish and just takes’.
We need more of this, and more women like her. Society will be all the better for it.
And my favorite line from the article:
‘We say to feminists: thanks for the trousers, but we see life a different way’.