Why I can't stand Harriet Harman

Meet Harriet. She's a labour party member, politician - and that's as far as I can go in my description. After this I start using offensive names.

Why do I dislike her so much? Well, she is...


-Minister for women
-Minister for women and Equality
-Deputy leader of the labour party
-Party chair of the labour party
-Leader of the House of Commons

Yes, you read that right - she's twice the minister for women. I could say about the logical insanity of a "Minister for (subgroup) and Everyone else" but I'm not going to. I'll be good and not say "Why isn't there a minister for men".

Today I want to look at what she said.

In the Times, on Jan 25:

Harriet Harman, the women’s minister, said: “There is a major fear about women being targeted by their employers during the downturn. This is unlawful.” Another senior minister said women could be set back for “a generation”.

The latest official employment statistics show that the number of women in full-time work fell by 53,000 in the last quarter, compared with a fall of 36,000 for men. It means women are losing full-time jobs at twice the rate of men, because men significantly outnumber women in the workplace.

That seems fair enough. Except that in the Telegraph on the 7th of March

The Office for National Statistics published new data showing that fewer female workers were sacked at the end of last year than male staff, most likely because more of them have jobs in the public sector.

Its figures come just two days after the Government launched a new campaign specifically to help women cope with the effects of the downturn, along with a survey claiming that they are more worried about the economy than men.

Harriet Harman, the Women's Minister, said: "We cannot and will not allow women to become the victims of this recession."

And this is why I reserve a special place in my heart for Harriet - with the whips, chains and nails.

Because she doesn't care about anyone but her Chosen Group.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're in a bit of a recession. People are loosing jobs. Companies are folding.

But her chosen group must be protected from harm. Except that it turns out they're relatively unaffected. But has Harperson apologised? Has she announced that if companies fire proportionately more men will suffer legal action? An apology?

Of course not. Because Harriet doesn't care.

What was that? Legal action? Here, have a look, from the times, same article...

The government is to work with the EHRC to monitor businesses for evidence of discrimination over redundancies. Companies found to have unjustifiable discrepancies between male and female redundancy rates are being warned they face court.

Yep, us evil men have to be watched, monitored and sued if we fire more women. So not only does she not care about men - she believes we would deliberately act against women - as a group - given the chance.

It's got to the point where the moment she opens her mouth I disbelieve her. A new bill for equality? Look hard for a moment and you find it allows positive discrimination.

It wouldn't be so bad if she wasn't constantly on the news right now. But every time I see her the rage slowly grows...

Is a little fairness to much to ask for?

Or failing that, how about a week of peace?