This article was published online some 17 months ago, but it’s still worth pointing out to anyone whining about an alleged ‘gender pay gap’. The article is of the high quality you’d expect from the estimable Christina Hoff Sommers – author of Who Stole Feminism? How Women Betrayed Women and The War Against Boys – and her references to reports and studies by women’s groups make it particularly intriguing. Enjoy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html
It’s projected that by the time of the 2015 general election, the number of abortions carried out in the UK since the Abortion Act (1967) will have exceeded 8.2 million, more than the current population of London (8.1 million), or the current combined populations of Scotland (5.2 million) and Wales (3.0 million). This is despite virtually infallible contraception (the ‘pill’) having been available to British women throughout this period. Did the politicians who passed the Act in 1967 realise that abortions might be carried out on such a vast scale, over so many years? We can only hope not.
The following article – titled ‘Something’s wrong when life is as disposable as a nappy’ – was written by Amanda Platell and published in today’s Daily Mail:
After years of debate and an all-night sitting this week in parliament, the Irish Government has just passed legislation allowing abortions.
They insist it will not open the floodgates for abortion on demand, because terminations will be allowed only in very restricted circumstances – where the mother’s life is at risk or she is in danger of committing suicide.
The new law was greeted with celebration by many Irish women, dismay by others – and a sense of trepidation among those of us who have witnessed the abortion free-for-all that now exists in this country.
What began in Britain as sensitive, well-intentioned legislation to allow women to terminate pregnancies if they really needed to has become a form of contraception for the careless.
The legislation states that abortions are permitted only if the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life or will have an adverse effect on her mental health.
But over the 40 years since its introduction, the liberal Establishment and ‘progressive’ doctors widened the interpretation of mental health to the extent that, today, any mother who wants to abort a baby can do so, with mental health being cited as the reason in 98% of terminations. [My emphasis.]
Shocking statistics this week showed there were 185,122 terminations in England and Wales in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available. For some, abortion appears to have become a lifestyle choice: in 2011, 4,500 women had had at least four abortions, 1,334 were on their fifth, and 33 women had had nine or more.
The truth is that the debate about abortion in England and Wales, with its insistence on a woman’s right to choose, has ignored the fact some women have come to regard termination as a form of birth control.
Of course, there are circumstances in which abortion is necessary. Ireland’s decision to legalise follows the death in an Irish hospital last October of Indian-born Savita Halappanavar, after doctors refused to terminate her pregnancy while she was miscarrying at 17 weeks.
There are cases, too, in which the birth of a child would ruin a women’s life. But these tragic circumstances, where abortion is the right option, could not be more different from those in which incipient life forms are considered as disposable as a nappy.
In our public consultation document (link below) we invite respondents to suggest further areas J4MB should consider, with a view to possibly including them in our 2015 general election manifesto.
https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/our-public-consultation-exercise-2/
A large number of respondents have already suggested proposals to restrict the grounds on which women can obtain abortions. This subject isn’t currently covered by the document. Interestingly, the area of abortion is the single additional area most often cited by female respondents. It’s less commonly cited by men, but when men do mention it, it’s often because of men’s total lack of reproductive rights – men having no legal right to challenge women’s ‘choices’, whatever those choices might be. Men only have potential responsibilities in this area. In the case of a woman becoming pregnant – whether accidentally or otherwise – and she decides to bear the child, the man will be required to financially support the child for 18+ years. If he fails to do so – or the mother refuses to identify the man – the financial burden will fall on taxpayers. Men collectively pay 72% of the income tax in the UK, women only 28%. As usual, women exercise ‘choices’, and men pay the bills, either individually or collectively.
We shall shortly start the process of drawing up proposals in this area, and will post a revised public consultation document in due course. Feedback on the proposals in this area, as in other areas, may influence whether this issue will be included in our 2015 general election manifesto.
I spotted the following on Twitter this evening:
As Robert Zimmermann noted 50 years ago:
The times, they are a’changin’…
Will the Spectator be the first right-of-centre British periodical to expose the scourge of modern feminism? We can but hope.
Would a 24-year-old male teacher who admitted having an affair with a 16-year-old female pupil walk free from court? Surely not. And if the genders are reversed? The usual story:
My thanks to a highly valued supporter (and donor) for pointing out to me that 2013 is the centenary of the publication of a remarkable book, The Fraud of Feminism, written by Ernest Belfort Bax (1854 – 1926), a British socialist journalist and philosopher. The Wikipedia entry on this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
The book:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bax/1913/fraud/index.htm
The opening of the Introduction:
In the following pages it is not intended to furnish a treatise on the evolution of woman generally or of her place in society, but simply to offer a criticism on the theory and practice of what is known as Modern Feminism.
By Modern Feminism I understand a certain attitude of mind towards the female sex. This attitude of mind is often self-contradictory and illogical. While on the one hand it will claim, on the ground of the intellectual and moral equality of women with men, the concession of female suffrage, and commonly, in addition thereto, the admission of women to all professions, offices and functions of public life; on the other it will strenuously champion the preservation and intensification of the privileges and immunities before the law, criminal and civil, in favour of women, which have grown up in the course of the nineteenth century.
The above attitude, with all its inconsistencies, has at its back a strong sex-conscious party, or sex union, as we may term it, among women, and a floating mass of inconsequent, slushy sentiment among men. There is more than one popular prejudice which obscures the meaning and significance of Modern Feminism with many people. There is a common theory, for instance, based upon what really obtained to some extent before the prevalence of Modern Feminism, that in any case of antagonism between the two sexes, women always take the man’s side against the woman. Now this theory, if it ever represented the true state of the case, has long ceased to do so.
The powerful female sex union spoken of, in the present day, exercises such a strong pressure in the formation of public opinion among women, that it is rapidly becoming next to impossible, even in the most flagrant cases, where man is the victim, to get any woman to acknowledge that another woman has committed a wrong. On the other hand it may be noted, that the entire absence of any consciousness of sex antagonism in the attitude of men towards women, combined with an intensification of the old-world chivalry prescribed by tradition towards the so-called weaker sex, exercises, if anything, an increasing sway over male public opinion. Hence the terrific force Feminism has obtained in the world of the early twentieth century.
The start of the final chapter, ‘The Indictment’:
Feminism, or, as it is sometimes called, the emancipation of woman, as we know it in the present day, may be justifiably indicted as a gigantic fraud – a fraud in its general aim and a fraud alike in its methods of controversy and in its practical tactics. It is through and through disingenuous and dishonest. Modern Feminism has always professed to be a movement for political and social equality between the sexes. The claim for this equalising of position and rights in modern society is logically based upon the assumption of an essential equality in natural ability between the sexes. As to this, we have indicated in the preceding pages on broad lines, the grounds for regarding the foregoing assumption as false. But quite apart from this question, I contend the fraudulent nature of the present movement can readily be seen by showing it to be not merely based on false grounds, but directly and consciously fraudulent in its pretensions.
It uniformly professes to aim at the placing of the sexes on a footing of social and political equality. A very little inquiry into its concrete demands suffices to show that its aim, so far from being equality, is the very reverse – viz. to bring about, with the aid of men themselves, as embodied in the forces of the State, a female ascendancy and a consolidation and extension of already existing female privileges. That this is so may be seen in general by the constant conjunction of Political and Sentimental Feminism in the same persons. It may be seen more particularly in detail, in the specific demands of Feminists. These demands, as formulated by suffragists as a reason why the vote is essential to the interests of women, amount to little if anything else than proposals for laws to enslave and browbeat men and to admit women to virtual if not actual immunity for all offences committed against men. It’s enough to consult any suggestions for a woman’s “charter” in order to confirm what is here said. Such proposals invariably suggest the sacrificing of man at every turn to woman.
Our last general election manifesto is here.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.
A lady supporter has emailed me the following:
There are times I’m embarrassed to be a women. I think you said men collectively pay over 70% of the income tax collected in the UK, and women less than 30%. Why aren’t men rioting in the streets over madness like this?
We recently put up a post about Josie Cunningham (23), a shop worker and wannabe ‘glamour model’, whose breast enlargement operation had been carried out by the NHS – at taxpayers’ expense – while the NHS had declined to finance an operation which might have enabled a two-year-old boy with cerebral palsy to walk. Here’s that post:
The lady supporter was referring to a piece in today’s Sun:
Ms Cunningham says of her breasts:
They’re so big I find them embarrassing and I don’t feel I can do any modelling because they’ve attracted so much negative attention. I’m thinking about having a reduction on the NHS.
Let’s hope that if she formally requests another operation, the NHS will refuse it. But I doubt they will refuse it. Especially if she cries.
A ‘must read’ article, and ‘must see’ videos:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-ex-jersey-hires-hitman-kill-husband-article-1.1393731
I’ve just received an intriguing email from a supporter (and donor) concerning a place in Spain where he was planning to book a holiday in August. He’s now decided otherwise, on the basis of the following review on ‘Trip Advisor’, dated yesterday, 8 July:
Are we seeing the start of a consumer backlash against feminist manipulation in areas where consumers can choose where and how to spend their money? We can but hope. In case the review ‘disappears’, here it is, in full. The reviewer gave the property three stars out of a possible five stars:
“Beware of package holidays here!”
Reviewed 8 July 2013 NEW
Cortijo Barranco is set in the middle of rolling Spanish hills, with some gorgeous views from its lawns. It is spotlessly clean, has delightful staff, good facilities that include an equally spotless swimming pool (although the approach to the whole place is a bit unprepossessing and the food was obviously down to a price). BUT it is very isolated and, whilst that is fine for those who want real peace and quiet, it has a serious downside for the special interest group holidays held there regularly by Helicon Arts, which is the reason for my “average” rating. Under other circumstances, I would undoubtedly have scored it higher.
I spent a week in July 2013 on a Helicon Arts Jazz and Popular Choral Music Course holiday led by Helen Wills (known as ‘Heli’ – hence Helicon) and her former university chum Ciara Mc Cullough. The musical leader was Mary King, well into her her sixties now, and who has been a professional singer, but who rather boringly kept making her personal, Feminist, agenda all too personally clear.
On one occasion, she had a rant (as she put it herself) about some words in a song referring to a woman losing her identity to a man she loved, which she banned from being sung (hey, it’s just a song, and the composer intended what he said), and on another, apropos of absolutely nothing, she laid in to Marilyn Monroe’s famous “Happy Birthday Mr President”, doing the most stunning rendition of it, laced with equally stunning sarcasm and some pretty strong sexist comments.
Ms King always referred to women in the group as “Ladies” and the men (all of whom were seasoned professional people, incidentally) as, “The boys”, and it was clear from the outset “the boys”, who were outnumbered three to one by “the ladies” (who, without exception, were somewhat past being “of a certain age”, incidentally), were considered something of a makeweight in the proceedings.
Such was Ms King’s preoccupation with getting “the ladies'” lines just right, “the boys” just had to get on as best they could. Add to that her choice of music that essentially consisted of unison songs and rather banal rounds – including one that recounted the story of a guy who had been ditched by a girl who considered him beneath her station and “My husband’s got no courage in him” (no surprises there then and hardly Jazz or strictly Popular Chorus) – and maybe the full picture will become clear.
When I raised the pretty extreme Feminism issue with Ciara of Helicon, in an after dinner conversation during the week, the whole atmosphere of the holiday instantly changed. Most of the women guests went into a clique and ultimately the group dynamic went down the pan, which wasn’t comfortable at all in an isolated farm house in the hot, Spanish interior, to all intents and purposes cut off from the real world.
Cortijo Barranco is an unusual and quite lovely place. Go there with your spouse, or friends or family for peace and quiet, but it is too isolated to accommodate essentially amateur holiday outfits like Helicon that naively bring diverse groups of strangers together in what amounts to a house party, under diva-type leadership, and who don’t have the ability to manage uncomfortable issues in the interests of ALL their clients.
If you want a music activity holiday with a repertoire of interesting and challenging music; if you want to learn something new under an inclusive leader; particularly if you are a man (or even a woman who doesn’t care for the sort of thing I have described) and want to sing in a balanced group (in all meanings of that word!), you’d do better booking with a professional firm that has professional staff able to manage group dynamics better and who are able to keep their specialist providers in check (they are, after all, just employees ultimately paid for by the clients). Above all find a company that has the resources and marketing skills to ensure balanced numbers of men and women singers in the first place, like The Really Big Chorus people.
And it will almost certainly cost you a LOT less money. Helicon’s holidays are really extraordinarily expensive for what you get (typically about £1000 per week for mainly shared bedrooms and mediocre food – you are obviously paying for the accompanist and choral leadership), plus you have to get your own flights.
Our thanks to ‘The Rights of Man’ http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk for alerting us to this scandalous story:
Yesterday we posted a piece about one form of paternity fraud – women deceiving men into thinking they were using contraception when they weren’t (usually by not taking contraceptive pills) or sabotaging contraceptive methods e.g. puncturing the ends of condoms with pins.
Today we turn to a second form of paternity fraud, a form which is illegal in the UK and a number of other countries – women deceiving men into believing they’re the biological fathers of individual children, when they’re not. It’s believed to be a far more widespread practise than is popularly supposed, which is why we call in our public consultation document for compulsory paternity testing within a week of a baby being born.
In 2008 the Child Support Agency (‘CSA’) reported that it knew of over 1,200 cases of this second form of paternity fraud, i.e. where a paternity test had found the woman’s claim to be false. You have to wonder how many men simply accept the women’s word, and pay for many years to support another man’s child. Now here’s an intriguing fact about this form of paternity fraud:
Not one British woman has ever been convicted of the crime.
I’m grateful to Mr W for alerting me to an interesting article from the US, concerning cases of men being legally required to pay child support for children even when they’re not the children’s biological fathers:
Mr W asks the intriguing question, ‘Could it happen here?’ I don’t know – maybe it’s already happening – so I’m sending the following Freedom of Information Act request to the CSA, to obtain the answer:
I’ll post their response as soon as I receive it.
Paternity fraud is an appalling assault on men, both emotionally and financially. Yet the state effectively condones it, and doesn’t punish women who are demonstrably guilty of having committed it. It’s time for this ridiculous state of affairs to end.
Justice for Men & Boys 