Rachel Reeves Demands Pictures of Men Removed From Downing Street State Room
Rachel Reeves has demanded that pictures of men by male artists are removed from the state room in No. 11 Downing Street in the latest misandrist move from a so-called ‘progressive’ Government. The Telegraph has the story.
The Chancellor has reportedly imposed a new female-only rule on the decor, meaning that all artworks on display in the state room must be “of a woman or by a woman”.
The aim is to celebrate “amazing” female figures, but a Tory source branded the move “pathetic gesture politics”.
It comes just three weeks after Sir Keir Starmer had a portrait of Margaret Thatcher removed from her former study in No 10, sparking claims by the Conservative Party that he has “got a problem with women”.
He later said he took down the painting because he doesn’t like pictures of people staring down at him, and prefers landscapes.
According to reports in the Guardian and the Daily Mail, Ms Reeves told an all-female reception at No. 11 this week: “This is King James behind me, but next week the artwork in this room is going to change.
“Every picture in this room is either going to be of a woman or by a woman – and we’re also going to have a statue in this room of Millicent Fawcett, who did so much for the rights of women.”
Small in itself, it is nonetheless symbolic, telling us something worrying about the Chancellor’s idea of ‘equality’: away with the men, bring in the women.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
She could put Maggie back on the wall, that would work for me.
That’s about as likely as people gushing about female contributions to computer science ever mentioning Grace Hopper. Wrong kind of woman.
I expect you know more about these things than I do. How do you rate Ada Lovelace? Hopper was an Admiral in the Navy I think. I started my “career” developing in COBOL. I’m not greatly into classifying people who’ve contributed to any field by irrelevant characteristics of any kind. Glad Turing got on the £50 note. Von Neumann seems like he made a big difference too.
Hedy Lamarr
Bloody hell how could I forget her?
She never looked lovelier than in H M Pulham Esq, one of my favourite films and books
She worked on a precursor to mobile phone messaging technology.
Frequency hopping.
Damned overachievers!
She was probably racist
Almost certainly
Her mother was Hungarian – pretty sure all Hungarians are racist like that horrible Orban person
And these women are already celebrated, hopefully for what they have achieved and not because they are women. I don’t recall the likes of Einstein, Beethoven, Faraday, Tommy Flowers, Watt, Mendeleev, etc. being celebrated as men, but by their chosen specialty.
Same is true in reverse, of course. People being rubbish at their jobs, doing bad deeds or generally just making a hash of things, which has a negative knock-on effect on society, should be criticized for what they’ve done as *people*, first and foremost, not because of which sex they happen to be. Anybody who wishes to make everything about gender is clearly somebody who has deep-seated issues and an axe to grind against the opposite sex. With certain people scapegoating based on a person’s sex is quite the obsession. I no more think Jacinda Ardern was a globalist, psychopathic dictator towards the NZ citizens because she is a woman than I think Klaus Schwab is a malevolent, narcissistic megalomaniac because he’s a man. These are character traits irrespective of what the person’s sex chromosomes happen to be.
Ada Lovelace reportedly wrote a program which never ran for a computer which was never built. Her very important contribution to computer science is thus – minus being the right kind of woman, ie, not a US admiral – very likely that she invented the first bug. Truly ahead of her time.
:->
Hopper created a higher level programming language and a compiler for that by the time when most of her male colleagues were still busy with entering machine code via front panel toggle switches.
My vote goes to Hopper
Women have made few contributions to anything. They are constantly scrabbling around trying to find some female that has done something vaguely useful. Men created and create our world. Women just bugger it up
”Anybody who wishes to make everything about gender is clearly somebody who has deep-seated issues and an axe to grind against the opposite sex. With certain people scapegoating based on a person’s sex is quite the obsession.”
Exhibit A.
Quite a long time ago (around 2002), I wrote a RTP receiver capable of reassembling MPEG streams with error correction. For playback, this was using a MPEG card with a Linux device driver written by female programmer from the Netherlands whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten. That was long before “IT something” became fasionable as way to make a fair lot of money by relatively little work (or so the myth goes) and thus, before it grew affirmative actions of all kinds.
Judging from my personal, entirely unscientific experiences, the overwhelming majority of men also excel at buggering up and little else.
Nice one M A k. 👌
medocrity at any cost
And many fail even to reach that standard.
Sets an abysmally low standard and continually fails to achieve it. HM Forces report, allegedly,
“Small in itself, it is nonetheless symbolic, telling us something worrying about the Chancellor’s idea of ‘equality”
This is far from being “symbolic” and points to a disturbing narrow mindedness. Since when has any discussions on the merits, validity and value of art required examination through the prism of gender? Such examination might be a useful device amongst the dumb and corrupt wokerati but for normal members of the population it is just attention seeking ignorance.
What goes through this pea-brained creature that she sees the world in purely sexual / gender terms? How would she consider art from an unknown artist?
This is a myopic and venal woman who is unable to take a wider view of the world and clearly she has no business occupying one of the principal offices of state in this country. The intellectual vacuities on display are sad but more rightly of some concern.
Reeves is a perfect match for the rest of the front bench – greedy, grasping, ignorant, short-sighted and thoroughly dishonest.
Ordinarily somebody’s taste in art or their personal preference for decorating their office or home should have nothing whatsoever to do with how they do their job, nor should it be of any interest or relevance to the public, in my opinion. Personally, I couldn’t give a rat’s arse about what somebody wishes to do with the pictures they’ve inherited. However, given the way she’s gone out of her way to make such a performance and broadcast what she’s doing and why then it absolutely becomes relevant because now we’re all forming an opinion and making a judgment on this individual, her qualities, personality, integrity, as well as her obvious prejudices. I can’t think that anyone other than a fully paid up Leftard would see that what she’s standing for here is positive or harmless. I think she’s doing a fine job of painting herself as an intolerant, hostile and unpleasant woman. So what opinion are the men of the UK supposed to have of her now, off the back of this? Imagine if Starmer or Lammy went out of their way to announce the fact they were ditching all female works of art and it’d only be male subjects… Read more »
“Please say she’s not married. He’ll be a right cuck if she does have a husband.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw4ywl7w820o
Married to a Senior Skiver, Nicolas Joicey – a right sinner.
Two children.
Combined income – taxpayers money £300k +.
Ordinarily somebody’s taste in art or their personal preference for decorating their office or home should have nothing whatsoever to do with how they do their job, nor should it be of any interest or relevance to the public
Ordinarly, people don’t temporarily occupy the traditional chancellery building. This place has existed long before her tenure and will – in all likeliness – continue to exist long after it has ended. “I’ll have a great reset in order to build back better!” is thus a little more than just some woman decorating her office.
Ah, Millicent Fawcett. The famous inventor of the tap.
Woops, sorry. That was Millicent Faucet.
I strongly doubt Rachel Reeves really cares about any of this stuff. Just playing to the gallery.
Everything in that room was made by a man.
Isn’t that sexist?
Isn’t discriminating against men sone sort of hate crime?
No of course not it’s like being racist against white people or taking the piss out of the bible. Doesn’t count.
Emasculate, air brush out, denigrate the men in your group and nature will take it’s course. Coming across the channel in large numbers are men from actual patriarchal ‘societies’ and they will ‘smell’ male weakness and go about replacing the men here. It happens in nature and up till now we are still firmly a product of nature, irrespective of surgery or hair dye..
I look forward to see a picture of JK Rowling a v successful writer and defender of women on the Reeves wall.
Vile, communist cat lady. Nasty socialist misandrist. Someone should report for for a hate crime against men. Time she did some time inside.
What a silly little twit. Is this the kind of twisted ideological morons we have governing us? ——Yes it is. ——We are being overrun by migrants, knife crime is out of control, people cannot afford their energy bills as our Politicians pretend to save the planet, we have kids being allowed to pretend they are Wolves and no one dares say anything. As someone once pointed out “people go mad in crowds”
I always find the ‘tables turned’ method works well for uncovering the BS of faux progressives. In this case, would it be acceptable for a male MP to demand all images of Women removed if they were painted by female artists? Clearly not.
Is she a lesbian? Just asking.
I think she has a husband. Poor bloke.
So Der Starmer takes down paintings of women and Reeves takes down paintings of men. I can see a pattern developing here.
Would she be okay for painters who ‘identify’ as women or of portraits of men in drag?
This could be tricky.
How is she going to decide if they are women?
In view of her governments statements, they may or may not have a cervix or penis.
This may not just be misandry. It could also offend many in the LGBTQIA+
Should be fun.
Anyone who calls a painting an “artwork” is a complete philistine. That would be Reeves.
The real hypocrisy of the DEI campaign becomes even more obvious.