My thanks to a supporter for pointing me to an interesting campaign group chaired by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP. It’s the Justice for Families Campaign Group http://justice-for-families.org.uk. The group is affiliated with a number of organisations with an interest in family-related matters, you can find links to them here http://justice-for-families.org.uk/index.php

Diana Davison is an impressive American Honey Badger. Some time ago she wrote an excellent piece for AVfM concerning the battle between Community Organized Compassion and Kindness (COCK) and The Women’s Activism Tyranny (TWAT). She’s now produced a video on the subject, downloadable through the following link. Please find the time (9:38) to watch it. Trust me, you won’t regret it.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/diana-davison-with-some-words-for-women/

Canada leads the world in producing truly outstanding Honey Badgers (anti-feminist women). Alison Tieman (‘Typhoneblue’) and Karen Straughan (‘GirlWritesWhat’) are among their number. A video from Alison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ye4_ZCIYY

A video from Karen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nGOxZnvANQ

Over the past eight weeks I’ve been watching a riveting Channel 4 documentary about a state school in the north of England – Educating Yorkshire. It would be difficult to imagine a more damaging indictment of the (increasingly feminised) state education system, where both female teachers and the minority of male teachers now focus their attention more on the female pupils – regardless of their sometimes appalling behaviour – at the expense of the male pupils.

It’s a wonder that the female:male ratio of university students today isn’t even higher than 3:2. In  fields favoured by women – well-paid, flexible working arrangements, pleasant surroundings, high levels of social engagement, appreciation from customers, low risk (i.e. public sector) – the ratio’s even higher. Among medical students today the ratio is 7:3.

Christopher Stevens, the TV critic of the Daily Mail, has written an outstanding critique of the series for the paper, and it was published in today’s edition. His comments on an incident which particularly riled me:

The evidence of Educating Yorkshire is that  atrocious behaviour is, sadly,  commonplace, and there are no sanctions.  Teachers can do nothing to  enforce their authority — and the children know it  and exploit it.

One girl made a hobby of tormenting a younger  boy called Jac-Henry, saying the filthiest things about his mother until he  lashed out in anger. Then she beat him up.

She kept a gang of cronies around her who  would swear Jac-Henry had attacked without provocation.  The girl pleaded a  loss of memory over the incidents — ‘Did I stamp on his head? Dunno, might have  done.’

The result was that she got off scot‑free and  sniggering, while Jac‑Henry was diagnosed with behavioural problems and referred  to an anger management specialist.

The ‘anger management specialist’ was, predictably, a female teacher. Jac-Henry was clearly crushed by the blame that had come only in his direction. When asked what lessons he’d learned from the incident, he said with genuine emotion, ‘You shouldn’t hit lasses’. Meanwhile the girl had learned she could hit ‘lads’, because she wouldn’t be held accountable for doing so. Will she take this knowledge into adult life? Doubtless she will. The article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2477217/Moving-way-run-school-Viewers-enchanted-fly-wall-series-inspiring-Yorkshire-state-school-Mails-TV-critic-begs-differ.html

 

 

 

Ally Fogg’s blog is titled, ‘Heteronormative patriarchy for men’. I suppose I should try to find out what the term means one day, but somehow I never seem to run out of far more important things to do, e.g. taking our grumpy Doberman, Harriet Harman, for walks.

Ally’s blog is one of many made available through ‘Freethought Blogs’, an organisation about which I confess to knowing little. To be fair to Ally, he hasn’t personally threatened to ban me from commenting, although one or two people have asked him to do precisely that.

So I was intrigued to watch a new video by Thunderf00t about his own treatment by Freethought Blogs. His videos are always worth watching, and this one (which is no exception) is downloadable through a link provided by the good people at AVfM. Dean Esmay’s introductory comments are interesting too:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/the-freethought-blogs-sinking-ship/

Thunderfoot’s video channel is here, and I strongly recommend subscribing:

http://youtube.com/user/thunderf00t/videos

 

 

There’s an excellent YouTube channel with about 80 videos, ‘Women Against Feminism’. It currently has 4,745 subscribers:

http://www.youtube.com/user/WomanAgainstFeminism/videos

The latest video is a short one (2:44) consisting of a slideshow of women – mostly young women, encouragingly – holding up sheets of paper with messages on the theme, ‘I don’t need feminism because…’. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEvwzbjTJfU

There are about 80,000 men in prison in the UK, and 4,000 women, so men outnumber women 20:1. A large part of the differential is attributable to men being more likely than women to be incarcerated for committing the same crimes, and to men serving longer sentences. That aside, if you ever needed convincing that to the government one woman is worth more than 20 men, this should do the trick:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24659289

Are any of the stated arguments for women to serve sentences nearer their families, not equally applicable to men? Let’s take this one sentence:

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it wanted female inmates to maintain family relationships and improve their job prospects before leaving jail.

So does the MoJ not want male inmates to maintain family relationships? Does it not want to improve men’s job prospects before they leave jail?

In this and countless other ways, men are treated as barely human by the state. We need to speak to politicians in the only language they’ll understand. We need to threaten their livelihoods at the ballot box at general elections. So I ask you to contribute to our campaign to raise £1,000 to fund our fifth candidate at the 2015 general election. Even £1.00 will help. We need to raise at least £634 in the next six days, or the money raised so far will revert to the donors. You can make a donation (by PayPal, credit or debit card) through this link, and feel free to remain anonymous should you so wish:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-j4mb-raise-gbp-1-000-to-fund-its-fifth-2015-general-election-candidate

Thank you for supporting men and boys (and the women who love them).

 

Our thanks to a lady supporter for pointing us to this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10393704/Cherie-Blair-is-spouting-guff-my-children-need-my-talent-more-than-KPMG.html

The website of this organisation is http://mothersathomematter.co.uk. It was already on our list of recommended blogs and websites, which recently passed the 160 mark:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/recommended-blogs-and-other-websites/

 

 

 

We recently put up a blog piece announcing our intention to publicly challenge Dr Jude Browne, Director of Gender Studies at Cambridge University, after a presentation she’s due to make on 29 October:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/your-invitation-to-a-presentation-in-cambridge-29-october/

Now ticket sales were VERY slow when we last checked, a couple of days ago. Maybe three or four tickets were selling each day, and there were about 240 left. I’ve just checked again, and in the space of just two days it would appear that well over 200 tickets have been taken, for only 17 are now available:

https://corporateboards.eventbrite.co.uk/

If you’d like to join myself and a number of supporters, please book a ticket ASAP and email me at mike@j4mb.org.uk to let me know you’ll be joining us.

It would seem the feminists’ collectivist instincts have kicked in, and rather than respond rationally to our public challenge of Dr Jude Browne – or any of the other feminists (and their collaborators) who we’ve publicly challenged – they’re going to try to intimidate us with a show of force. I hope this analysis is correct, and I’m looking forward to the event with even more relish than before. I anticipate posting some interesting video footage of the event a day or two later.

‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.’

MAHATMA GANDHI

A little over four hours ago I emailed a letter to Ally Fogg, a journalist with the Guardian, with a request. I had no intention of putting it into the public arena, but Ally is happy that I do so:

131022 a request to Ally Fogg

Ally responded with the following, and shortly afterwards accepted my suggestion that I publish both my letter and his response (below), for which I thank him. It would have taken him considerably less time and effort to publicly challenge the three feminists I referred to in my letter, which simply reinforces my point about the media being disinclined (with rare exceptions) to challenge feminists on their misleading statements. I’ve indented a paragraph which gave me particular pleasure.

Dear Mike,

Every day I read things that are not true. Our newspapers are full of things
that are not true. Our politicians say things that are not true. People write
me letters and emails telling me things that are not true.

For example, your letter to me, after a preamble and quoting my words at
length, begins:

‘We live in an era when the EU has announced its intention to introduce
legislation to ban anti-feminist speech, a matter not mentioned by any major
news outlet in the UK to the best of my knowledge.’

The reason this has not been mentioned in any major new outlet is because it is
not true. It is not just slightly  factually mistaken, it is palpably,
unequivocally 100% false. The EU has made no such announcement. The EU does not
have the legal power to prescribe domestic law on areas such as hate speech to
nation states, even if it wanted to – and there is no evidence that it does
want to.

What the article on A Voice For Men describes is a document prepared by an NGO
called the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation – which has no
authority whatsoever  – who have submitted it to the European Parliament
Civil Liberties Committee (which itself has no meaningful authority whatsoever)
and if you read the actual document, it amounts to suggestions to nation states
as to what laws they might want to pass against hate speech. I can find no
evidence that the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee plans to do
anything with it. You really shouldn’t believe everything you read on the
internet, you know.

You go on to say:

‘You must surely be aware of how feminist-friendly the British media
are.’

No. I am not. The Guardian is certainly very feminist-friendly, as is the
Independent. They have, between them, fewer than 300,000 daily circulation.

The Daily Mail and the Sun between them have around 4 million. The Evening
Standard, the Telegraph, the Star, the Express and the Times have another two
and a half million or so between them. For every column with a vaguely feminist
tint by Suzanne Moore or even Janet Street Porter, there are the dozens of
 columns by Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Phillips, James Delingpole, Peter Oborne
 etc etc etc.

This does not begin to address the point that the great bulk of news coverage –
on issues such as family policy, female celebrities, coverage of crime,
coverage of economic and political matters in the vast majority of British
media is not what anyone could call feminist friendly.

You ask, ‘Is it not one of the duties of the media to challenge prominent
figures who make ‘unequivocally, demonstrably false claims?’

Yes, it should be. And the more important the claim, and prominent the figure,
the more important it is that they are challenged. When we look at the
downright falsehoods uttered almost daily by Iain Duncan Smith about benefits
claimants, by Michael Gove about schools; the utter falsehoods about the EU
that regularly appear on the front pages of the Mail and the Express; about
immigration and asylum seekers by the Sun and the Star, we should all be deeply
concerned. These lies and falsehoods have a major and damaging impact on our
political culture and democracy, and in some cases create real and often
horrific hardship for vulnerable individuals.

In comparison to the above, whether or not the (with all due respect to her) almost entirely obscure and powerless feminist Caroline Criado-Perez is accurate in what she says about the impacts of women on the boards of companies
strikes me as almost entirely trivial.

Quite a large proportion of my output as a writer is devoted to challenging or
correcting falsehoods and mistakes on issues of gender that circulate in the
media. Those include falsehoods and mistakes propagated by feminists,  by
men’s rights activists, and by those such as Hanna Rosin who float somewhere
between. I actively support and champion projects such as fullfact.org which
 are devoted full time to correcting the innumerable mistakes and falsehoods in
the political and media realm. I don’t need any prompts, challenges or
‘requests’ to challenge any specific writers or campaigners, I have a
 whole media smorgasbord to choose from on any given day of the week if  I
so choose.

I certainly don’t need advice to pick out feminists as being uniquely dishonest
or untrustworthy. When compared to the shameless mendacity and full-blown
 propaganda of the corporate right wing media, feminist activists and
journalists are, frankly, small beer. To single out feminists would be to imply
that feminists are uniquely guilty of dishonesty or inaccuracy and that would
be, ironically enough, both dishonest and inaccurate.

So the answer to your request is no. In the meantime, if you are really
concerned about truth and accuracy, you might want to consider issuing one of
your ‘public challenges’ (or indeed ‘requests’) to A Voice
for Men to demand that they delete their entirely false claim that the EU
intends to introduce legislation to ban anti-feminist speech.

You are very welcome to publish both your letter to me and this response,
should you have the decency.  In the meantime, I don’t intend to continue
our correspondence in any serious way. I find that in order to have a sensible
conversation with you, I have to spend a good few minutes correcting the
innumerable mistakes and falsehoods in everything you write, and to be honest,
I have more important things to do with my time.

All the best

Ally