Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Dictators & Marriage

It’s ironic how the Iranian revolution of 1979 was initiated by students in an attempt to get rid of the Shah, who was a virtual dictator. All they succeeded in doing was replacing one dictatorial regime with another possibly even more repressive one - and history seems to be determined to try and repeat itself.

Talking of dictators, in a pre-election battle Harriet Harman is accusing David Cameron of planning to reward philanderers on their second or third marriages with tax breaks for married couples, while stigmatising former wives left to bring up the children. Why is it automatically assumed that when a couple divorce it’s the man who is the philanderer?

Harriet Harman happens to be the Minister for Women. Do we have a Minister for Men?

I have problems with tax breaks for married couples anyway – surely it’s discriminatory? I also have problems withy people who try to persuade couples to marry on the basis that it makes couples happier and more likely to stay together. Couples marry precisely because they are happy to start with; marriage itself does not confer happiness in some mysterious way. It’s a prime example if reverse logic being applied by the stupid. It’s like saying that if no-one married then the divorce statistics would improve, or if we had no customers then our customer complaints would drop.


  1. Chairman, being a serial husband I may have garnered enough info' on what may be the secret of continual marital/relationship bliss!
    The trick is to not permanently inhabit the same house. Living a few minutes away gets respective partners out of range of potential disasters such as ballistic crockery, mood swings and toilet seat requirements. Having the rooms of your home separated by a couple of streets seems to work. Something to do with absence and fondness. ;)

  2. I always thought you were our Minister For Men.