Her anecdote then goes on to show her objecting to a clear feminist position. She argues the case clearly. I have no doubt that if she can find one objectionable position she could as easily find a host of others, even within the narrow category of female responsibility, let alone the myriad double-standards that feminists advocate.

So why is she ‘of course’ a feminist? A moment’s reflection on the ramifications of her own arguements would inevitably lead her to extensions of principle and impacts on wider life issues, shirley?

It seems that feminists are taking on the attributes of many ‘religious’ people who cherry-pick the bits they like to believe and criticise ot ignore other bits, while continuing to call themselves believers. It is a thin adherence that she has but the very fact of the adherence encourages others into the maw of the beast.

She describes what she calls ”Campus rape ideology”, as though such perversion of thought is confined to that segment of women’s endeavour. It permeates the whole of feminsim ‘of course’. This confinement is another shadow of her cherry-picking mindset.

I wonder how she deals with Hitler and train timetables. I can hear her saying, “I was in the SS and of course a Nazi”, then going on to say things about Jews being passable shopkeepers who should not be blamed for shoplifters.