The danger of under-reaction

Normally, I over-react to something which appals me. That over-reaction lasts about one and a half seconds during which time I issue all sorts of interesting words under my breath and think all sorts of thoughts which, if enacted, would land me with a heavy jail sentence.

Often I am able to recover and perhaps I under-react as a reaction to my over-reaction. (One has to keep civilised after all, apparently).

I think that is what I did last Saturday. I wrote a post very quickly (within about ten minutes in fact) responding to a post from a regular blogger about women voting.

I would like to retract the elements of soft tone in that post.

Now here's what I really think:

I quite accept that such views about women exist in society (thank you, Asquith). If I heard them down the pub I would shrug my shoulders and move away from the speaker.

But the idea that anyone who is a member of the Liberal Democrats and blogs within the LibDem aggregator expresses such bigoted views about women is utterly appalling. Such views are completely in contravention with the whole spirit of the Liberal Democrats and the letter of our preamble to the Constitution.

I just think of some of the women I have admired and do admire in this party. Enid Lakeman. Baroness Nancy Seear. Baronesses Williams, Sharp, Barker etc etc. Then I re-read these words:

Many women don’t have a clue about politics so they need someone to make their decisions for them and for that reason its OK for the man to decide who the women votes or is it? I don’t see anything wrong with a man making the decision in the household to who everyone votes but then that is just me.

I'm sorry, Irfan. You have had enough yellow cards over gays, Israel and, even, incredibly, basic justice. This is a red card now.