"As a sex, we are vastly superior to men, but it is taboo to show it".

- Kate Saunders, prominent English journalist, author, and feminist, Sunday Times (UK) 16 July 1995.

A remark like that should be repeated all over the globe.

Feminists claim that "feminism is for men too", and still expect us to believe that it is indeed about gender equality, while shamelessly propounding ideas that would not be out of place in Mein Kampf.

Saunders states:

"I'm a mainstream kind of gal. My feminism continues to burn with a hard, gem-like flame"

...thus reaffirming that, as far as she is concerned, her gender supremacism is no radical-fringe position, but central to contemporary feminist thought.

Feminists who disagree might like to explain why none of their ever-vigilant army of letter writers, whom we can unfailingly rely on to react with the senstivity of trembler alarms at the merest hint of an insult to women, considered this stunning and offensive conceit, prominently published in the UK's leading mass-market quality newspaper - by a professional journalist, no less - not worth even a mild rebuke.

Anything, any sign at all, sisters, that your heroic assaults on sexism all these years were never meant to exempt women.

But, nope, nothing.

Not a peep.

(And nothing unique about that, either).

Saunders' disclaimer "but it is taboo to show it" (our emphasis) is half clever, neatly explaining why women, despite this "vast" superiority, have so far - among other things - conspicuously failed to eradicate poverty, stamp out crime, put an end to war, colonise Mars, or square the circle, not to mention eliminate the shabby gender bigotry which so many of their advocates openly flaunt as though it were a virtue.

Then of course there's the question of why such a superior sex tolerated eight millennia of the patriarchal civilisation that, according to feminists, oppressed them so savagely, before finally deciding to opt out of it, a task they have all but accomplished in less than 30 years.

Because it was "taboo" to show their superiority? What does it take to believe something like that?

Finally, this should be obvious: if women really were as superior as Saunders likes to believe, they would of course have found a way around this non-existent "taboo" aeons ago.

But don't tell her. Let's not spoil her fun.

Saunders also helpfully informs us that she organises her day "with the efficiency of a Nazi".

Well, her words, not ours, but we probably would have come to the same conclusion anyway.

Apart from admiring her honesty, we would like to draw to her attention the end result of this so-called "efficiency", in case she has any plans to repeat it, to wit, 40 million dead, two continents ravaged, a criminal misdirection of economic resources on a global scale, and a major civilised industrial country reduced to rubble.

Again, though, as we say, her words, not ours.

The above commentary was first published in 1995. Saunders has since stated that she has "the body of a Spice Girl [and] the brain of an Einstein" (quoted in The Week, 29 March 1997), which invites a rather tempting riposte, but it's far too obvious.