Recently we posted a link to an article by a British journalist who freely admitted she’d tried to become pregnant by using the contents of her two ex-husbands’ used condoms shortly after sex, without their knowledge or consent. Our thanks to a valued lady supporter for pointing us to this piece:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2407401/Women-sell-positive-pregnancy-tests-Craigslist-25-each.html

So manipulative women have invented NON-paternity fraud, and will doubtless profit from it, whether as sellers of ‘positive’ pregnancy tests, or as the buyers, using them to manipulate men into marrying them. Shortly after they marry, many of these women will claim they’ve had a ‘spontaneous’ abortion, and in due course engineer the breakdown of the relationship and walk away with the house and half the man’s assets. Quite a payback from paying a pregnant woman $25 to urinate on a stick and post it, isn’t it?

And of course there’ll be no proof she’s been deceitful, the evidence having been destroyed. But if the man has any sense, he’ll be suspicious, and certainly not fall for the same trick again. And so the relationships between men and women generally become a little more difficult. Do women collectively have no sense that they’re storing up a great deal of resentment in men through such deceits, and this partly explains why more men are choosing to going their own way, with every year that passes? It would seem not.

[Update 2 September 2013. On EBay’s UK website, 18 ‘positive tests’ were available, almost all from Canada:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.Xpositive+pregnancy+test&_nkw=positive+pregnancy+test&_sacat=0&_from=R40

Almost all are sold from Canada, and described as ‘jokes’ / ‘pranks’. Yeah, right…]

A supporter (and donor) phoned this afternoon to ask if we’d ever had any responses to the public challenges we’ve issued over the past 18 months. No, we haven’t. The people in question are utterly shameless. Here’s a small selection from the challenges we’ve made, in reverse chronological order:

Caroline Criado-Perez

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/caroline-criado-perez-is-asking-the-media-to-fact-check-no-seriously-she-is/

Dr Petra Wilton, Director of Policy, Chartered Management Institute

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/our-public-challenge-to-dr-petra-wilton-director-of-policy-chartered-management-institute/

Amina Women’s Project (Birmingham)

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/exposure-in-the-birmingham-mail-and-an-open-challenge-to-the-amina-womens-project/

Kat Banyard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R3fMxygLXw

Sir Roger Carr, chairman of Centrica

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/a-public-challenge-to-sir-roger-carr/

Helena Morrissey, CEO of Newton Investment Management, founder of the 30% club

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/11/16/our-public-challenge-to-helena-morrissey/

Professor Rita Marcella

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/our-public-challenge-to-professor-rita-marcella-aberdeen-business-school/

Fiona Hall MEP

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/our-public-challenge-to-liberal-democrat-mep-fiona-hall/

Ilene Lang, President and CEO of Catalyst

http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/an-open-challenge-to-ilene-lang-president-and-ceo-of-catalyst-an-american-organisation-campaigning-for-more-women-in-the-boardroom/

My thanks to the person who’s just alerted me to this. Women across the developed world have had access to virtually infallible contraception for 40+ years.  Feminists argue for the right of women to choose to have their pregnancies ‘terminated’ on a number of grounds, including the grounds that the foetus isn’t capable of independent existence before around 23/24 weeks. But a newborn baby is no more capable of independent existence than a foetus – nor, arguably, is an infant, or a young child. On what grounds would feminists object to women having the ‘choice’ to kill them too?

Medical ethicists are working towards giving women that power, arguing for them to have the power to have newborn babies killed, even perfectly healthy ones… even when the baby could be given up for adoption. From Journal of Medical Ethics:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

The full Abstract of the paper:

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The full Conclusions of the paper:

“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

Two considerations need to be added.

First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for nonmedical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.”

Somehow we missed this piece, first published about two months ago. A rare example of a woman receiving a well-justified custodial sentence after a false rape allegation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10160029/Cab-driver-falsely-accused-of-rape-saved-by-his-phone-app.html?fb

We can’t help wondering how many men have committed suicide after false rape allegations were made against them. Men would be well advised these days to carry recording devices to help protect themselves against such allegations.

Links to a great deal of research material, courtesy of the Elliot Institute, an American organisation:

http://afterabortion.org/1999/more-research-on-post-abortion-issues/

 

A startling blog piece by Dr Peter Saunders, CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members:

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/eight-facts-most-people-dont-know-about_26.html

Yesterday I was sent a link to a Daily Mail article by Ann, a supporter and donor, who’s heartbroken that she no longer sees her grandchildren, as her former daughter-in-law denies Ann, Ann’s husband, and Ann’s son access to them, having defied a series of contact orders with impunity. The woman eventually succeeded in alienating her two children (a boy and a girl) against both their father and their grandparents.

Ann sent me the link to the article (below) with the simple statement, ‘Sanity at last!’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333549/Top-judge-says-mothers-children-taken-away-dont-let-fathers-them.html

I then noticed it wasn’t a recent article – it dated from November 2010. So, has anything changed in the interim? For an answer to that question I turned to Ray Barry, the gentleman who’ll be contesting Wolverhampton South-West for J4MB at the 2015 general election. In 2010 he stood in the same seat for his own party, Equal Parenting Alliance http://equalparentingaliance.com. From his biography on the website:

Ray has three children, the eldest two of whom he has not seen for eight years. ‘I was a completely hands-on devoted father,’ he says. ‘putting them to bed, getting them up, cooking, and taking them on outings at the week-ends.

‘Words cannot describe my heart-break at being separated from them. My eldest two have refused to see me since their mother left with them, even though neither has ever accused me of any mistreatment (which might have explained their refusal).’

Ray spends a great deal of time supporting fathers seeking to gain access to their children following relationship breakdowns. With respect to the question of whether anything had changed since the judge made his remarks in November 2010, Ray said this:

There has been no noticeable difference since 2010.

Judges make a semblance of enforcing contact, but it is largely for show. In the final analysis, if a mother digs her heels in and consistently thwarts contact, judges seem to feel they are powerless to do anything meaningful about it. Their reasoning seems to be that the child’s need to have a bond with its mother is so all-consuming that any solution the court might have, such as transferring primary care to the father, or jailing the mother, or fining the mother, are all seen as measures which would be worse for the child than allowing the mother to continue defying the court.

What commonly happens is that under the mother’s influence, the child will  begin to express a wish not to see the father, and rather than address this as a form of emotional abuse of the child by the mother, courts and social workers reason, ‘We can’t be sure that it’s the mother’s influence  behind what the child says, and it’s not in the child’s best interest to force him to see his father against the child’s wishes, and so sadly, contact must  cease.’ That’s how contact most commonly ends, not with an outright defiance of court orders by the mother, but with a refusal by the court system to address this manipulation of the child by the mother. Brazil has passed a law making parental alienation unlawful. So it can be done. It is the lack of political will to do it in this and other western countries that is the problem. Politicians are scared to death of offending the sisterhood.

So there you have it. Manipulative malicious women (feminists and mothers) join forces to emotionally assault children, fathers, grandparents… and the politicians and judges (the majority of whom are men) do nothing about it. If this is patriarchy, I’m a jam doughnut.

It’s good to see a growing recognition that domestic abuse/violence (DA/DV) isn’t a gendered phenomenon. Over time we’re seeing more recognition of male victims, although pieces like the latest from the BBC (link at the end of this post) still leans strongly towards concern for female victims, with markedly less concern for male victims. We get the usual guff from Polly Neate, chief executive of Women’s Aid, ending with:

Domestic violence and femicide is the far end of a spectrum of violence against women that begins with street harassment and online trolling. We won’t end domestic violence until we end sexism.

More encouragingly, below Neate’s lengthy piece, halfway down the link, there’s a piece by Mark Brooks of the charity ManKind Initiative:

While we welcome the broad thrust of the initiative and the concerns raised by the home secretary, on the basis of equality we still cannot understand why the focus and emphasis remains on female victims rather than all victims.

The Home Office’s own figures show that one in three victims of domestic abuse are male and over 4,000 women per year are prosecuted for domestic abuse yet the government narrative continues to be on men committing domestic abuse on women.

This often unacceptably relegates men (and by extension their children) to being a footnote in the debate on domestic abuse solutions. In an age of equality, and to ensure all victims receive the support and recognition they need, irrelevant of gender or sexuality, there has to be a sea change in attitude and that comes from the top.

Any of the initiatives the home secretary is promoting, such as improved training for police officers and better education within schools, has to continually explain and recognise on equal terms that domestic abuse against men is as awful as domestic abuse against women. Only then can we say any such initiatives are successful for all victims and achieve the change we need to see.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23876948

A rare example of women receiving proportionate sentences for their crimes, from the United States. Might we hope for women to face the same sentences as men – when convicted of the same crimes – in the British justice system one day? Or are women forever to be treated like children, not fully responsible for their actions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23884241

 

An insightful piece on a new but promising American website:

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/the-girls-are-smart-boys-are-stupid-culture/

The demonization of masculinity experienced by males from the earliest age, and the relentless taxpayer-funded programmes designed to advantage women and girls over men and boys, are creating righteous anger and disaffection among men and boys. Women aren’t immune from the consequences, which may explain why ever more of them are self-identifying as non-feminists and anti-feminists.