Does Theresa May have the strength to punish Philip Davies for ‘feminist zealot’ speech?

Philip Davies: ‘Feminist zealots want women to have their cake and eat it’
Philip Davies: ‘Feminist zealots want women to have their cake and eat it’

This is a win-win situation for those who oppose the Conservatives.

It is long past time that Philip Davies had his comeuppance. This disgrace to the voters of Shipley is a serial filibusterer, talking out private members’ bills that would have helped the people of the UK – because they didn’t fit his twisted ideology.

Vox Political was among the first to question his decision to speak at an anti-feminism conference after his appearance there was uncovered by The Guardian (which, for once, had done its job).

Now he is facing the possibility of suspension from the Conservative Party – or at least a severe punishment – by prime minister Theresa May.

Or not.

But if Mrs May chooses not to punish Mr Davies for this severe lapse of judgement (which is the best way it can be described), she will face claims that she cannot control her own backbenchers.

It would be extremely ironic, considering the freedom enjoyed by the Tories as a result of Labour MPs’ rebellion against their leader, Jeremy Corbyn.

Of course, we can rely on the right-wing media to downplay the situation. It will be up to the rest of us to make the meaning of these events clear to the public.

So get your infographics, memes and blog articles ready.

Tory MP Philip Davies has faced widespread criticism after it emerged he told a conference hosted by an anti-feminist group that Britain’s justice system was skewed in favour of women.

Davies, the MP for Shipley, delivered a 45-minute speech at the International Conference on Men’s Issues, which was organised by the Justice for Men and Boys party (J4MB), claiming “feminist zealots really do want women to have their cake and eat it”.

The comments, disclosed by the Guardian, provoked outrage across the political spectrum including calls from the Labour leader that Davies should have his membership of the Conservative party suspended by the prime minister.

Davies, who sits on the Commons justice committee, had told the event at the ExCel centre in London that women benefitted from an “equality but only when it suits agenda”.

Jeremy Corbyn said the “deeply sexist” comments revealed Davies had “utter contempt for women”, before calling on Theresa May to withdraw the Conservative whip.

Source: Pressure mounts on PM to respond to Philip Davies’ ‘feminist zealots’ comments | Politics | The Guardian


Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


Related posts

12 Thoughts to “Does Theresa May have the strength to punish Philip Davies for ‘feminist zealot’ speech?”

  1. I am not sure what you mean by “a disgrace to the voters of Shipley”: I infer from it a suggestion that you think he has let them down.
    If that inference is correct then I beg to differ: they knew who he was when they voted him in, he is exactly who they wanted.
    If, on the other hand you mean that he is showing them up for the disgrace that they are, then I quite agree.

    1. Mike Sivier

      I’m saying his behaviour is disgraceful and reflects very poorly on the voters of Shipley who had the ill-judgement to make him their MP.

      1. Bill

        Mike – let us take Philip Davies out of the equation for a minute and get straight down to the real issues at the International Conference. I have some questions:

        Do you support the human rights of a child? – irrespective of gender to have a surgical procedure undertaken to remove a highly sensitive part of their anatomy as part of genital mutilation? In Southern Africa thousands of young boys have died due to such practice. Medical records show the devastating effects that can result – even death in advanced countries. Legislation has been passed in many countries to make FGM illegal – no such protection for males. This is not equality.

        A criminal act is a criminal act – why would you consider it to be acceptable that one gender is treated far more leniently than the other. Consider this issue from the victims perspective. Would this be equality?

        As a male you are at risk of prostrate cancer. Would you consider it to be equality if through lack of funding your life was prematurely ended while the funding for breast cancer for women was much much higher? Is it equality when medical research favours one gender?
        When my partner wanted a child, I had to undergo a medical procedure due to a defect. Against all odds a beautiful daughter was born, considered to be a miracle child by the medical profession. I found out later that a few weeks after the pregnancy my partner had wanted to abort due to morning sickness. I discovered that I – as a father – had no rights at all to prevent the killing of a child. Is that equality?

        How about the high rate of male suicide? Consider the factors – no support in the form of refuge centres for male victims of domestic violence and abuse (especially those trying to protect their children). False rape claims? Is this equality?

        As more and more people are affected by the denial of the problems of inequality that exist in the UK, the lies that are being told are being exposed. In the end the truth will prevail – regardless.

      2. Mike Sivier

        I shan’t be answering your questions. We all know how these can be slanted to produce the response desired by the questioner.
        The issue was as I described it. On one side we had a Tory MP, attending a meeting organised by another political party to speak in adversarial terms about the different treatment of women and men; on the other we had the Labour leader – and, in fairness, the candidate for the Labour leadership – speaking in inclusive terms about increasing fairness with regard to both sexes.
        Can you see why Mr Davies’ actions have provoked so much outrage, viewed in those terms?
        Incidentally, I am not at any risk at all of “prostrate” cancer. Prostate cancer is a threat – but one that remains entirely preventable.

      3. Most of these things you complain of Bill are provided by charities: people who have seen a problem and got off there arses to do something about it.
        If you are not happy about the provision of male refuges or prostate cancer research, then get off your arse and raise money for them.
        And damn right that you should have no right to prevent a lawful abortion, though I would suggest you have the right to try talk her out of it. Fortunately there was no need, and congratulations on the baby.

        Equality is bullshit: we are all different and vive la difference, but we should not suffer unreasonable inequality in any way.

        And Mike, it is demeaning to yourself and the debate to haul up on typos and spelling mistakes: I would of expected better from you…

      4. Mike Sivier

        Rubbish; it’s demeaning to the person making the mistake, having it seen by thousands of readers.
        It’s a common mistake, too. Always a good idea to put those right.

  2. Dez

    Interesting that such a low life lame brain should sit on a Commons Justice Committee
    with that sort of biased public background….Off off off

  3. Is the same man who wanted to charge hospital visitors and patients increased parking fees?

    1. Yup. I could give you a long list of his despicable conduct, but doing so would make e depressed.

  4. No I don’t think she has. But then again she’s whipped the male conservatives to do as they’re told. Notice I didn’t say men ?

  5. Bill

    Considering that MP Philip Davies used data produced and verified by government departments to factually substantiate the issues that he raised in his presentation at the International Conference, it would appear that no effort has been made to evaluate the points and provide a rebuttal based on actual evidence. A personal attack on any person is the recognised strategy when no valid counter-argument is available to deflect the validity of the original message.

    1. Well put Bill.
      I have had word from a lady at the front line that he may have a valid point.
      But did you miss the memo? We are now in the era of post fact politics: let us not pass up on this opportunity to scrag the odious excuse for a bipedal lifeform..

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.