My thanks to the supporter who’s just brought a remarkable article to my attention. It was published on the website of the Equal Parenting Alliance, over two years ago:

http://www.equalparentingalliance.org/2010/09/female-child-abuse.html

 

It’s not often the leader of one political party has anything good to say about the leader of another, but I’d like to make an exception. Ray Barry is the leader of the Equal Parenting Alliance http://equalparentingalliance.com and he wrote the section of our public consultation document concerned with parental access to children following relationship breakdowns (link below, pp 10.11).

130320 J4MB consultation document,

In response to a supporter’s query about contact orders – issued by courts to ensure reasonable access to children by absent parents (usually fathers) following relationship breakdowns – I contacted Ray for some information on the matter. He responded with the following, for which I thank him. It’s reproduced here with his kind permission:

The ways that mothers can thwart contact orders, if they are so minded, are:

1) Delaying, e.g. making allegations of the child or the mother being at risk from the father. It can then take six months or more to investigate, by which time the father’s bonds with the child can be broken, and that then becomes the reason for the court to order no contact. In short, the status quo has changed over time – the child no longer wants to see his/her father, and the court considers it wouldn’t be in the child’s best interests to force him/her to do so. The fact the original allegations weren’t substantiated becomes irrelevant.

2) Mothers simply refusing to comply with orders. Specific enforcement measures were introduced about four years ago, which allow for unpaid work or financial compensation to be ordered against a mother who breaches a contact order. However, courts are reluctant to use these powers. They reason that the mother is the primary carer, so if she becomes upset, that will impact adversely on the child; a happy mother makes for a happy child. On this reasoning, a court is likely to change the order to what the mother wants, rather than enforce the original order.

3) Parental alienation: subtly poisoning a child’s mind against his/her father. If a child says he/she doesn’t want to see his/her father, even if the child gives no particular reason for that wish, a court will invariably accept this at face value, and not order contact.

A new bill covering this is going through parliament at the moment. The present law is neutral on the question of whether a child benefits from contact with a father. The key change in this new bill is to introduce a presumption in law that unless there is evidence to the contrary in the facts of the case, the court must hold that contact with father will further the child’s welfare. It’s called the ‘presumption of contact’ and is vehemently opposed by the feminist lobby which reasons that it places the rights of fathers above the welfare of children.

Glen Poole is the UK co-ordinator for International Men’s Day and hosts the National Conference for Men and Boys, which is held annually in Brighton & Hove. He’s also director of Helping Men which works for the public and not-for-profit sectors to improve services for men and boys in areas like health, fatherhood, education, criminal justice and social care. Our thanks to Glen for giving some exposure to the important issue of male suicide on his blog:

http://helpingmenblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/suicide-biggest-killer-of-young-men.html

We wish Glen and his organization every success in the future.

In 2011 6,045 British people committed suicide. 4,552 were men (75.3%) and 1,493 women (24.7%). The highest rate was in the male age bracket 30-44. Suicide in this group accounted for more deaths than road accidents, murder and HIV/Aids combined.

Unemployment has long been a major driver of male unemployment. For every three women registered as unemployed, four men are. Almost two-thirds of public sector workers are women, yet the Equality Act (2010) permits public sector bodies to preference women over men when recruiting and promoting staff. This must be contributing to male unemployment and therefore the male suicide rate.

Feminism is killing men, in this area and others.

Last week I had an email from a fireman who explained that some years ago the physical tests which need to be passed by prospective firefighters were relaxed considerably so as to enable more women to become firefighters. He claimed to know of cases where women had been accepted into the fire service despite having failed even those less strenuous physical tests. Who can doubt that lives have been lost as a result of the actions and inactions of female firefighters who weren’t up to the job physically? It seems a very high price to pay for yet another example of feminist-inspired idiocy.

I recently posted a blog piece https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/culturally-sanctioned-child-abuse/ concerning a comment made in a discussion thread on Mumsnet, a British website targeted at mothers. The comment read:

I’m a 45 year old mother with a son (13) and daughter (15). We go swimming most weeks and we use the family change room, the showers are communal, where I make my son shower nude. We all use the same cubicle when changing but I make my son change first then make him leave so my daughter and I can get changed without my son seeing us nude. Should I show more dominance towards my son or is this enough to show my daughter that women are in charge?

Following my posting of the piece, someone left a comment pointing out that the actions of the mother could be considered abuses of both the son and daughter under UK law, so last night I brought this to the attention of the CEO/Co-Founder of Mumsnet, Justine Roberts justine@mumsnet.com. The following is the full transcript of our email exchange (Ms Roberts’s emails are indented, for the sake of clarity):

Justine, good evening. I thought you’d wish to be alerted to a comment made in response to our blog post earlier today:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/culturally-sanctioned-child-abuse/

(The response from Ms Roberts this morning):

Mike, the post in question was not real – it was from a pervy troll. (Best not to believe everything you read on the internet!)

Justine, how can you be sure it’s a ‘pervy troll’? I understand that the authorities can track people down by their email addresses. Are you going to put this in the hands of the authorities?

Definitely a troll. He/she started more than one conversation – all highly inflammatory and pervy.

Thanks Justine, but this doesn’t mean s/he can’t be tracked down by the authorities, visited by them, and given a caution at the very least. I’m sure you’d want this if it were a man purporting to treat his 13yo daughter in this way, as I would. Are you prepared to inform the authorities accordingly?

Mike it’s a troll – it’s not true! Unfortunately trolling happens a lot….

So, let me get this straight. Just because you think it’s a ‘pervy troll’, you’re not prepared to inform the authorities? As you’ll see from the comment on my blog piece, female abuse of children is probably as common as male abuse of children. If you’re not willing to inform the authorities, then we will. And I’ll update my blogs with the gist of this exchange. Please let me know.

Mike – I can’t help feeling you’re being deliberately obtuse.

To be clear, we don’t take these things lightly at all but it is absolutely crystal clear that this poster – who has posted multiple times each time with different outlandishly perverted and inflammatory stories – is a troll. Informing the authorities would be an utter and complete waste of their and my time (as indeed this conversation is increasingly proving to be!)

If you publish this exchange – it would be great if you’d publish it in full so no one can get the wrong end of the stick,

Justine, I assure you I am NOT being ‘deliberately obtuse’. I am not willing to take the risk that you are wrong, and that a woman is abusing both her son and daughter. Could you please inform me of the police jurisdiction in which you’re based, so I can inform the relevant authorities, and ask them to pursue this matter? Thank you.

(I had no response to the last email, so two hours later I sent the following).

Justine, good afternoon. For the avoidance of doubt, can I assume that you’re no longer going to reply to my emails? I’ll assume this is the case if I don’t hear from you by 5pm today. Thank you.

(Having had no response three and a half hours after my deadline, I plan to visit my local police station tomorrow morning to ask that this matter be investigated. I’ll keep you updated with developments.)

My thanks to the good folk who run a blog site http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/ concerned with the run-up to the May 2015 general election. They’ve just sent us the following link to the popularity of the websites of British political parties:

http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/party-political-websites-popularity.html

This website is receiving twice as many ‘hits’ as the website of the Ulster Unionist Party (‘UUP’) which is very pleasing, given the UUP was launched in 1905 – 108 years ago – and our party was launched less than five weeks ago. The only way is up…

How would you feel if you were on a website devoted to fathers, and saw a man making the following comment on a discussion thread?

I’m a 45 year old father with a daughter (13) and son (15). We go swimming most weeks and we use the family change room, the showers are communal, where I make my daughter shower nude. We all use the same cubicle when changing but I make my daughter change first then make her leave so my son and I can get changed without my daughter seeing us nude. Should I show more dominance towards my daughter or is this enough to show my son that men are in charge?

I would hope that you would feel, as I would, appalled by such a story, and contact the people who ran the site in an effort to get this evil man tracked down, visited by the police, and her poor son allowed to shower as he wished in future, and to change in a cubicle on his own.

Last Thursday the party and I were attacked on the feminist website MumsNet http://www.mumsnet.com. In my customary manner I remained calm and posted links to our materials, and didn’t bother to read many of the hostile (but occasionally supportive) comments before the discussion thread was ‘pulled’.

The comment at the start of this piece – from an abusive father – never appeared on any website, but the day after the MumsNet attacks I was alerted by a contributor to the influential American website ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com to a comment made on the MumsNet discussion thread, at 17:46:51 on Thursday:

I’m a 45 year old mother with a son (13) and daughter (15). We go swimming most weeks and we use the family change room, the showers are communal, where I make my son shower nude. We all use the same cubicle when changing but I make my son change first then make him leave so my daughter and I can get changed without my son seeing us nude. Should I show more dominance towards my son or is this enough to show my daughter that women are in charge?

The AVfM contributor called this an example of culturally-sanctioned child abuse, and I have to agree. I’ve emailed the CEO / Co-Founder of MumsNet, Justine Roberts Justine@mumsnet.com, asking her what action, if any, she’s taken, or plans to take, in respect to this matter. I shall post her response (if I receive one) here.

Two months ago I published a post about feminist MP Diane Abbott’s admission of what non-feminists and anti-feminists have understood for many years – feminism has been a disaster for the nuclear family:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/left-wing-mp-diane-abbott-how-feminism-has-damaged-the-family/

The government recently announced plans to give tax breaks to working women, to subsidise their childcare costs. So the taxpayer will be funding yet another social engineering exercise, encouraging women into paid employment when they might otherwise follow their instincts and remain ‘stay-at-home mothers’. It’s all part of  the anti-family policy direction which the Conservative-led coalition pursues with as much zeal as its Labour predecessor.

The Daily Mail published a perceptive article two days ago, written by Bel Mooney, and titled, ‘The scientific PROOF that sending mothers out to work harms children’:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2296567/Scientific-proof-stay-home-mothers-benefit-children-So-coalition-Budget-tax-break-working-mothers.html

The men’s human rights movement is working ever more effectively on an international basis, particularly with respect to sharing ideas and information. And so it is that I thank a leading father’s rights activist in Sweden for sending me a story about the closure of a Men’s ‘safe house’ in Canada, due to lack of funding. It was the only one of its type in the whole of that vast country:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/20/privately-run-shelter-for-male-victims-of-domestic-abuse-forced-to-close-its-doors-due-to-lack-of-funding/

Among the areas of our consultation document which have raised the most interest is the area of domestic abuse / violence (‘DA/DV’). 21 ‘key facts’ about DA/DV were publicised recently by The Mankind Initiative  http://www.mankind.org.uk following a good deal of research. The charity supports male victims of DA/DV and is well worth supporting:

http://www.mankind.org.uk/donations_bequests.html

Almost all of Mankind’s ’21 key facts’ are backed up by statistics from the Office for National Statistics. The following link is to our consultation document, which also includes the URLs of the ONS information sources. DA/DV is covered on pp 7 – 9.

https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/130320-j4mb-consultation-document.pdf

40% of DA/DV victims are men assaulted by their female partners. While the state finances 4,000+ places in refuges for women, there are only 15 places for heterosexual men. So men constitute 40% of victims and receive just 0.4% of state funding. Which is yet another assault on men who have suffered enough, especially given that men collectively pay 72% of the income tax receipts of the state.

On our YouTube channel we now have video and audio files of nine of my recent radio and television appearances, seven of them with the BBC:

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKhX1c3ow6BrzdzP3ydpeZQ/videos

Perhaps the highlight, in terms of audience numbers, was last week’s interview with Jeremy Vine, whose BBC Radio 2 show regularly attracts audiences of 6 – 7 million listeners. The next day I much enjoyed being interviewed by the highly respected journalist and broadcaster Julia Hartley-Brewer for her show on LBC, London’s leading commercial radio station. She was very professional throughout and, impressively, she’d gone to the trouble of reading our consultation document in advance. In the interview, after mentioning a number of the proposals in that document, Julia stated the following:

I’m very surprised to say this, Mike, but I have an awful feeling you may have a point, scary as it is!

I was pleased recently to be invited to appear on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, in the episode due to be recorded and broadcast over 10:00 – 10:45 next Thursday, 28 March. The programme has been broadcast since 1946, and it’s long been a taxpayer-funded mouthpiece for feminism in general, and for militant feminism in particular. The Wikipedia entry on Woman’s Hour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Hour

I see from the BBC website that the presenter next Thursday will be the militant feminist Jenni Murray, who’s been a presenter on the show since 1987. She was quoted in the Independent (link below) as having once said that marriage is ‘legalised prostitution’:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jenni-murray-woman-of-the-hour-419127.html

I’m much looking forward to meeting Ms Murray, and hopefully one or two other militant feminists, too. Harriet Harman would be my first choice, obviously, but I could name a dozen other prominent militant feminists I’d be equally happy to debate with.

Not many people seem to be aware that there’s a BBC radio programme for men, Men’s Hour. There’s a very good reason why not many people are aware of it. I refer you to a blog post I wrote in May 2012 (link below). It concerns a Radio Times interview in which Ms Murray praised both the show and its presenter, Tim Samuels:

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/mens-hour-an-endorsement-from-a-radical-feminist/

I end this email with an appeal 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 aiming to raise at least £15,000 to finance deposits for the top 30 Conservative marginal seats 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.

For some time the prime mover behind European Union efforts to bully major European companies into appointing more women to their boards has been an odious militant feminist, Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission. We’ve covered her nefarious activities at some length on the blog of Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com. Ms Reding’s own website http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/index_en.htm led me to an EU press release from November 2012, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-796_en.htm. It concerns a speech in which Ms Reding made the following statement:

A United States of Europe is the subject of my talk today. A United States of Europe – a powerful, ambitious, and probably controversial vision of the future of our continent. I am sure that we will have a lively argument about my postulate afterwards: namely that to find its way out of the current financial and debt crises, we must now embark on the road to a United States of Europe.

A United States of Europe with people like Viviane Reding at the helm. What a grim ‘vision of the future’.