Among the anti-feminist bloggers whose pieces I always take the time to read, must be counted the American lady who writes under the name ‘JudgyBitch’. She’s just published a characteristically insightful, feisty, and funny piece, inspired by the nonsensical article (‘Women make better decisions than men’) published online by a Canadian business school, DeGroote, about which I myself wrote a piece yesterday. Enjoy this taster of JudgyBitch’s output, then subscribe to her blog, and prepare for some treats:
Month: March 2013
Anti-feminism might become illegal in the Nordic countries
It’s becoming commonplace to hear those with left-wing convictions (and feminists in particular) claim that anti-feminists hold extreme right-wing views and oppose equality. The claims are ridiculous. Feminism assaults left-wing men and women as much as it assaults right-wing men and women. Indeed, disadvantaged men (who we might expect in general to be left-leaning) in mid-life are particularly assaulted because they’re denied employment opportunities, and we know unemployment is a major driver of the high male suicide rate:
https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/why-disadvantaged-men-in-mid-life-die-by-suicide/
We support equality of opportunity, pay etc. but these things have existed in the UK for 30+ years. Equality of outcome is, by contrast, a left-wing utopian dream which requires anti-meritocratic social engineering initiatives to deliver, with many unintended consequences. Men and women make different choices in life, and that’s why we see different outcomes in the workplace and elsewhere.
During my recent Woman’s Hour discussion with the left-wing ‘comic’ writer John O’Farrell, he stated:
Mike’s movement is the male equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan during the fight to abolish slavery.
A Swedish father’s rights activist has just pointed me towards a remarkable story. Anti-feminist speech could be made illegal in Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway):
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/29/antifeminism-might-become-illegal-in-the-nordic-countries/
Militant feminists – with their male collaborators – are seeking to impose a degree of censorship onto those holding opposing views, which would have made Stalin blush with shame.
Women make better decisions than men
Pandering to women in the business world, regardless of the damage being caused to the only wealth-creating sector, shows no sign of abating. Universities have for many years been riding this anti-meritocratic gravy train, and I thought I’d seen it all in the 14 months since I launched Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com. But an article published by ‘A Voice for Men’ a few days ago really takes the biscuit (link below):
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mcmaster-university-and-men/mcmaster-university-girlz-iz-mo-betta/
The focus of the article is a piece titled, ‘Women make better decisions than men’, posted online by the DeGroote School of Business, at McMaster University (Canada):
http://www.degroote.mcmaster.ca/articles/women-make-better-decisions-than-men/
It surely won’t be too long before the piece is ‘pulled’, before DeGroote suffers too much reputational damage (in case they do, I’ve put the content at the end of this piece, for posterity). The piece refers to a ‘study’ co-authored by Professor Chris Bart, Professor of Strategic Management at DeGroote. The content of the article is so laughable – it even cites a ‘study’ (Joy et al) published by a militant feminist campaigning organisation, Catalyst – that I simply had to post a couple of comments. Nothing unusual so far. But I was struck by how many other people also made critical comments, many of them very perceptive. Almost all of these people are unknown to me. It’s clear that public consciousness about the sheer idiocy of claims such as, ‘Women make better decisions than men’ is inexorably on the rise.
In case DeGroote pulls the piece, here it is, for posterity:
Women make better decisions than men
Julia Thomson | Hamilton, Ontario | Posted: March 25, 2013
Women’s abilities to make fair decisions when competing interests are at stake make them better corporate leaders, researchers have found.
A survey of more than 600 board directors showed that women are more likely to consider the rights of others and to take a cooperative approach to decision-making. This approach translates into better performance for their companies.
The study, which was published this week in the International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, was conducted by Chris Bart, professor of strategic management at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, and Gregory McQueen, a McMaster graduate and senior executive associate dean at A.T. Still University’s School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona.
“We’ve known for some time that companies that have more women on their boards have better results,” explains Bart. “Our findings show that having women on the board is no longer just the right thing but also the smart thing to do. Companies with few female directors may actually be short-changing their investors.”
Bart and McQueen found that male directors, who made up 75% of the survey sample, prefer to make decisions using rules, regulations and traditional ways of doing business or getting along.
Female directors, in contrast, are less constrained by these parameters and are more prepared to rock the boat than their male counterparts.
In addition, women corporate directors are significantly more inclined to make decisions by taking the interests of multiple stakeholders into account in order to arrive at a fair and moral decision. They will also tend to use cooperation, collaboration and consensus-building more often – and more effectively – in order to make sound decisions.
Women seem to be predisposed to be more inquisitive and to see more possible solutions. At the board level where directors are compelled to act in the best interest of the corporation while taking the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders into account, this quality makes them more effective corporate directors, explains McQueen.
Globally, women make up approximately 9% of corporate board memberships. Arguments for gender equality, quotas and legislation have done little to increase female representation in the boardroom, despite evidence showing that their presence has been linked to better organizational performance, higher rates of return, more effective risk management and even lower rates of bankruptcy. Bart’s and McQueen’s finding that women’s higher quality decision-making ability makes them more effective than their male counterparts gives boards a method to deal with the multifaceted social issues and concerns currently confronting corporations.
The International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics is available online.
How do people make decisions?
- Personal interest reasoning: The decision maker is motivated by ego, selfishness and the desire to avoid trouble. This method is most often exhibited by young children who largely tend to be motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
- Normative reasoning: The decision maker tries to avoid “rocking the boat” by adhering to rules, laws or norms. Stereotypical examples of groups that use this form of reasoning include organizations with strong established cultures like Mary Kay or the US Marines.
- Complex moral reasoning: The decision maker acknowledges and considers the rights of others in the pursuit of fairness by using a social cooperation and consensus building approach that is consistently applied in a non-arbitrary fashion.
Why should boards have more female directors?
- Boards with high female representation experience a 53% higher return on equity, a 66% higher return on invested capital and a 42% higher return on sales (Joy et al., 2007).
- Having just one female director on the board cuts the risk of bankruptcy by 20% (Wilson, 2009).
- When women directors are appointed, boards adopt new governance practices earlier, such as director training, board evaluations, director succession planning structures (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2002)
- Women make other board members more civilized and sensitive to other perspectives (Fondas and Sassalos, 2000) and reduce ‘game playing’ (Singh, 2008)
- Female directors are more likely to ask questions rather than nodding through decisions (Konrad et al., 2008).
Call To Action
Television Editors – Live interviews with Chris Bart can be arranged using the DeGroote School of Business’s broadcast studio. Call Julia Thomson 905-525-9140 ext. 24871 to schedule airtime and book a live feed from campus.
Meet the female paedophile
In men’s human rights circles, the British man who runs a website titled, ‘Man, Woman & Myth’ is a legend. I had the honour of meeting him about a year ago. His website’s here, and it’s worth spending some hours (and arguably days) looking through the content. It will prove an education in why and how men’s human rights have long been assaulted:
http://youtube.com/manwomanmyth
The influential men’s human rights website ‘A Voice for Men’ has just published a short piece of video recorded by MWM in 2011 (link below). Please find 4 minutes and 33 seconds in your busy day to watch this. Thank you.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/meet-the-female-paedophile/
Part-time women doctors are creating a timebomb
I’m a big admirer of the entrepreneur Hilary Devey, who’s been in the press of late talking a lot of sense about women in the world of work. She’s mentioned in a Daily Telegraph article today (link at the end of this piece). What would the response of the government be, if male doctors worked 25% less than female doctors? We can be very sure they’d do all in their power to train fewer male doctors and more female doctors. But give the reality is that female doctors work so much less than male doctors, British citizens are being assaulted both as taxpayers (financing the training of many more female doctors, to make up for the lesser time they devote to work) and as patients (experiencing a poorer service from the NHS).
Female doctors have traditionally been keener than male doctors to go into general practise, and a little over 50% of GPs are now women – the proportion continues to rise year-on-year. Given that many of these women eventually give up working altogether (due to supportive male partners), or work part-time (whether or not because of caring responsibilities), and are far less likely than men to work unsocial hours or visit patients at their homes, the GP service is in crisis in the UK.
The article presents a stark picture:
At the moment, just over half of registered doctors are men, but it is predicted that women will overtake them in less than five years. A 15-year follow-up of doctors after graduation showed that on average, after career breaks and part-time working are taken into account, women work 25 per cent less than their male counterparts. The problem, put starkly, is that the average male medical graduate will work full-time, while the average female won’t. This means that the state will get more man-hours out of a male graduate than a female graduate.
The ‘bottom line’ here?
To deliver the same work output, the taxpayer can finance the expensive training of either three male doctors, or four female doctors.
The article:
It’s good to see the Telegraph, a paper to which I subscribed for many years until Simon Heffer departed for the Daily Mail, starting to print more sense about the dire impact of feminist-inspired social engineering programmes on British society. I predict we’ll see more of this over time in our more serious newspapers and periodicals.
Interview on ‘Woman’s Hour’
I much enjoyed being interviewed (along with the ultra-left-wing ‘comic’ writer John O’Farrell) on the BBC Radio 4 programme Woman’s Hour this morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNxw8NXNul4
Jenni Murray, the highly regarded (albeit feminist) presenter, was very professional before, during, and after the discussion. O’Farrell, in stark contrast, engaged in shaming tactics and personal attacks, and offered opinions masquerading as facts.
O’Farrell recently stood as the Labour candidate at the Eastleigh by-election, and made a very poor showing. Maybe this had something to do with the constituency being near Southampton, the city from which a flotilla sailed taking service personnel to the Falklands war, in which 255 servicemen died. In one of his books, O’Farrell wrote that he’d wished Britain had lost the Falklands war, thereby harming Margaret Thatcher’s prospects of re-election. In the same book he recorded his disappointed at learning she hadn’t been killed in the Brighton IRA bombing. I could have engaged in shaming tactics during our discussion by mentioning these matters, but I didn’t, preferring instead to talk about substantive issues.
I end this piece with a request for donations to our party. None of the people associated with the party, including myself, obtain any personal income from donations. 100% of donation income is directed towards campaign costs. We’re currently aiming to raise at least £15,000, to enable us to finance the deposits for the top 30 Conservative marginal seats which we plan to contest in the May 2015 general election. You can make a donation through this link:
https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/donate/
Thank you for your support. We’re working hard to make the future brighter for men and boys, and the women who love them.
Mike Buchanan
PARTY LEADER
My sparring partner in tomorrow’s ‘Woman’s Hour’
I’ve just learned that I’ll be debating with John O’Farrell on Woman’s Hour tomorrow (BBC Radio 4, 10:00 – 10:45). He’s the ‘comedian’ who made such a poor showing as the Labour candidate at the Eastleigh by-election recently. He wrote in one of his books that he’d wished Margaret Thatcher had been killed by the IRA bomb in Brighton:
He wanted Britain to lose the Falklands War:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2283026/Is-Eds-pal-sickest-man-politics.html
An interview on BBC Radio Merseyside
I enjoyed a discussion earlier this evening on BBC Radio Merseyside (link below) with the feminist blogger Holly Combe, with whom I had a discussion not long ago on BBC Radio 5 Live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op5tC56O7yc
I respect Ms Combe as a debater, which is more than I can say for some of the other feminists with whom I’ve had radio discussions recently. A (lady) supporter yesterday emailed me to say she thinks two of those young ladies are ‘batshit insane’, and I suspect I know which two she was referring to. It hopefully goes without saying that I wouldn’t dream of employing such terminology myself.
In both of our discussions Ms Combe has sought to engage with counter-arguments – although her tactic of dismissing widely-available statistical evidence is a wearying feminist tactic – and she remained commendably calm. It’s not her fault, after all, that all the evidence bases support our arguments, and not hers.
Local radio discussions tend to be fairly short, and I became exasperated at one point about discussions of Diet Coke ads (although I understood the point the presenter was making about the objectification of men) and ‘man flu’, so I felt I had to get the discussion back onto more substantive subjects – the state’s failure to ensure reasonable parental access to children following relationship breakdowns, and domestic abuse/violence.
Female firefighters – coming soon to a fire near you? Fingers crossed!
Mr J, a new supporter who lives in the Midlands, recently made a generous donation to the party, and mentioned in passing that he’s a firefighter. I asked him for his experiences of how men and women are treated in the fire service, having heard (and read) a number of disturbing rumours over the years. He had a number of tales to tell, so I asked him to collect them together, and email me. The content of his email is below, and I’ve added and subtracted nothing. Can anyone doubt that lives have been lost, or will be lost – firefighters’ lives and those of others – as a result of this feminist-inspired initiative, just one of countless such initiatives in the public sector in particular? Mr J writes:
I first applied to the fire service in the year 2000. It was about this time when a big recruitment drive was on and there was lots of press coverage encouraging women to join up as they were severely ‘under-represented’.
I passed all fitness, strength and intelligence tests. I was one of approx 170 successful candidates, but unfortunately, only 50 were picked, at random by a computer.
I was then invited by the brigade to re-apply the following year. I was told I’d need to pass all the physical tests again.
During the physical tests, one in particular stood out, as I’d found it challenging the first time. A heavy weight was attached to a rope, via a pulley system, and it was to be hauled up approx 20 feet, and lowered, under control at all times, within a 20 second time limit. I steeled myself to heave on the line and once the Sub Officer gave the command, I gave it a bloody good pull! The weight shot up towards the pullies, coiling spare rope as it went. Gravity grabbed it, and it came hurtling back down again, snapping to a halt. I looked at the Sub, somewhat surprised and he simply said, ‘Carry on son!’ I was successful and I’m still a firefighter today.
A year or two later I was involved in a discussion with a senior management member about the brigade lowering the standard of the strength tests. He denied that was the case and even became irate with me, suggesting I should get my facts straight before opening my mouth. (Numerous colleagues have since told me I HAD got my facts straight!)
Once, whilst at HQ, myself and a colleague decided to approach human resources to ask about future vacancies, for his son and my friend’s daughter. My colleague spoke first and asked about his son joining up and was told ‘He’ll have to keep an eye on the local press because that’s where we advertise whenever there are vacancies’. I then mentioned my friend’s daughter had an interest in joining up, to be told, ‘Tell her to ring this number, and we’ll give her all the details of an upcoming open day for females only. She’ll be able to try all the related tests in advance of the actual test (Mr J – men aren’t given this opportunity) and get a feel for the equipment and what will be required of her’. Naturally my friend was incensed by this blatantly unfair advantage that my friend’s daughter was being given.
I’ve heard, second-hand, of a particular women in tears when faced with a fire, and on one occasion, refusing to enter a fire. I cannot verify this, but knowing the girl in question, I personally believe it to be true.
We’ve also invested in fire trucks that have very expensive air suspension in order for them to be lowered to the point where shorter people can reach the ladder gantries. I also heard, again second-hand, that whilst at training school during a recruit’s course that had a large percentage of female recruits, a ‘4 person’ ladder drill had to be amended to a ‘6 person’ ladder drill as the ladder was too heavy for the female recruits when handled by just 4 people.
On the fire ground, there simply wouldn’t be 6 people available to erect said ladder!
Recently, a very petite and slightly built female firefighter accused an officer of assaulting her – he is alleged to have shoved her aside – and a complaint was made which saw the police arriving at the officer’s door, in full view of family and neighbours. The woman’s own station manager was rightfully very supportive and made sure she wasn’t intimidated or influenced by other firefighters into withdrawing her complaint. I remember being angry myself at this guy for shoving this slip of a girl, indeed several of my colleagues were ready to batter him, frankly.
During a subsequent interview with the girl, she was advised that the entire alleged incident had been caught on CCTV, unbeknown to her! The footage clearly showed the officer concerned innocent of all charges and the girl then went on the sick. She was subject to a disciplinary but incredibly kept her job!!! She has since resigned however. The male officer concerned has had his name dragged through the mud and his reputation tarnished.
We have a system in the fire service for taking a day off when you should be on duty. Basically, it’s a first come, first served basis. You apply for the day you want off, as far in advance as possible, in order to be first in line. As the day draws nearer you can check the system to see where you are in the queue i.e. first, second, third etc.
During a school holiday, myself and several other firefighters that have children, were in the system for a particular day off. I think I may have been third, so was potentially going to get the day off granted.
A female firefighter then appeared on the system at the top of the queue. I immediately rang her, as it was possible she may have had a family funeral or such other serious matter to attend to, in which case there would have been no issue. She told me she had been given the day off to attend a ‘women’s workshop/seminar’. She said she wanted to see what they were all about. I told her I thought this unfair (up to this point we were very close friends) as several people in the queue wanted to be off with their kids. She then sent several very unfriendly texts to my phone telling me that ‘women are here to stay and if you don’t like it, then tough!’ She also said that ‘You should’ve applied for the day off sooner then’ – tho it wouldn’t have mattered when I applied for the day off, as she jumped to the top of the list at the last minute.
There are 2 female firefighters that I have worked with on a regular basis and they are extremely confident and good at their jobs. I would have no hesitation in entering a very dangerous situation with either of them and would be happy knowing my life was in their hands. It’s a matter of having the best people – male or female – in the job.
I’ve also spoken to many Watch managers who’ve voiced concerns that the day will soon come when a fire appliance is crewed in the back by 3 women. Every one of them makes sure that, as far as possible, women on a watch are split up so that they’re on different appliances to prevent the possibility of an all-women Breathing Apparatus team. That said, NO-ONE would dare state this openly.
Child abuse linked to parental alienation
Another story reported by the Equal Parenting Alliance (‘EPA’), over three years ago. The child abusers in question were ‘intrafamilial adolescent sex offenders’, a major cohort among child abusers.
75% of child abusers were alienated from one of their parents.
This disturbing consequence of parental alienation has come to light in recent research by the Australian Institute of Criminology.
The Institute found that “Almost three in every four offenders had either no contact or minimal contact with at least one biological parent” (Australian Institute of Criminology Intrafamilial adolescent Sex Offenders: Psychological Profile and Treatment, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 375, June 2009. p.2).
The original paper: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/D/F/9/%7BDF967C8E-EE57-4891-993E-90E40CF1F7B2%7Dtandi375.pdf
Given that the state encourages parental alienation – notably, by failing to enforce contact orders against vindictive mothers – the state has become a key player in driving up the incidence of child abuse. 72% of the income taxes which largely finance the state are paid by men.
Justice for Men & Boys 