Janet Street-Porter: the most vile woman in Britain?

[Note posted 28.12.13: AVfM have published this piece, and as always the associated comments stream is well worth looking through:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/janet-street-porter-the-most-vile-woman-in-britain/ ]

Our thanks to J for pointing us to this story. An hour ago he called and spluttered, ‘Mike, you won’t believe what the hag has written about today!’ Sure enough, he was referring to a piece by the ‘personality’ and ‘journalist’ Janet Street-Porter. I can’t recall when a piece in a newspaper – British or otherwise – last made me so angry.

The Daily Mail has many fine female columnists and one truly vile one, Janet Street-Porter. At the very time of year when so many men are suffering the most due to denial of access to their children, because their vindictive ex-partners employ the services of the state to enforce that denial, JS-P has been so cruel as to write a piece published in today’s edition titled, ‘Deadbeat dads are the real problem’. It’s the second story in her column:


In a vile piece, possibly the most vile is this:

In this country, courts do not deny dads access to their children unless they are deemed a threat. There has to be a very good reason not to grant them the right to see their kids every other weekend.

Leaving aside the issue of whether access to children ‘every other weekend’ is reasonable access – we believe it’s not – can JS-P possibly be unaware how blatantly untrue these remarks are? More importantly, can her editor be unaware? And how about this?

One new study reckons there are about 1 million dads who live apart from their children – one in ten of all dads – a huge number. After talking to 1,000 dads who were separated from their children, it emerged that many were not working, had a poor education and had married or lived with someone three or more times.

You’d be forgiven for thinking ‘1 million dads’ live apart from their children through choice. We’re not told what the ‘new study’ is, of course. That aside, is she implying that it’s reasonable to deny fathers access to their children, if they’re not working? Or if they’ve had a poor education (hardly their own fault, after all)? Or if they’ve married or lived with someone three or four times? As far as the last point is concerned, Kate Winslet would fall in the same category, having had three children by three different men. Would JS-P favour denying Winslet access to her children? JS-P herself has been married four times. Pot, kettle, black? And how about this?

Of course, some women deny fathers access to their children without due cause, which is incredibly cruel, but what about the men who produce babies by different women and don’t pay for any of them?

Vast numbers of single mothers in the UK know perfectly well who the fathers of their children are – to be fair, many of them are genuinely unsure, but that’s another issue altogether – but they tell the authorities they don’t know who the fathers are in order to be supplied with social housing for life, welfare benefits etc. And who pays for that accommodation and those benefits? Men, in the main, who pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK.

In April 2012 we presented JS-P with a ‘Harpy’ award. It seems appropriate to provide a link to that story now. It will also take you to her award certificate:


More than a few people have asked us if the image of the woman in the certificate is JS-P herself, but it’s not. It’s a picture of a waxwork female vampire. The same image is used on the cover of my book Feminism: the ugly truth.

Two months ago this awful harridan made another ‘misleading statement’ – about the impact of women on companies’ performance – and we made a public challenge, as yet unanswered:


In the highly unlikely event this disgusting men-hating crone ever responds to the challenge, we’ll publish her response on this website. I end with a link to her profile on the website of a programme she appears on regularly, ITV’s Loose Women:


The following extract from her profile reveals all you need to know about her self-perception, and what others think of her:

The first thing I do in the morning is: Remind myself I am fabulous because no one else is going to!

I imagine her ex-husbands wake up every morning and spontaneously burst into a loud rendition of, ‘Oh, what a beautiful morning… oh, what a beautiful day!’

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • And of course a considerable factor is that court ordered contact is not actually enforced by courts. Thwarting contact in this way is generally agreed to be a considerable problem yet the contempt of court rarely gets punished. The combination of toothless courts and professionals in thrall to motherhood and “anti-oppressive practice” results in a system designed to fail the children who interests they should be placing paramount.

    • Thanks. You’re quite right, of course. We recently did a blog piece on a woman who’d thwarted 82 contact orders and will presumably carry on doing so until she suffers the consequences for her cruelty to both her children and their father. In the meantime judges are paid, lawyers are paid, psychologists are paid, CAFCASS workers are paid, social services workers are paid… the family courts system is a parasite on the suffering of fathers and children, and its appetite is insatiable.

  • My friend lost out through no fault of his own. His unemployed girlfriend moved in with him. Within one year he was homeless and paying child support. The mother while pregnant boozed all the mortgage payments and so his house was reposessed. No house for the man, no chance of child custody. The mother got the kid with nearly full custody and a council house. Wonderful thing the “best interests of the child” isn’t it.

    • Thanks John. Women have long known that if they superglue themselves to a child, they’re untouchable, regardless of what they do or don’t do. No man would ever get away with such despicable behaviour.

  • Jericho One

    One chap I know was denied access to his daughter by her mother yet she never suffered any penalties – it broke his heart… The last time I spoke to him, he had not seen his daughter for several years, but has managed to start a new family. If some deadbeat dads do exist, then you have to ask why women are selecting such louts to have relationships with in the first place? It takes two to tango.

    “they tell the authorities they don’t know who the fathers are in order to be supplied with social housing for life, welfare benefits etc. And who pays for that accommodation and those benefits? Men, in the main, who pay 72% of the income tax collected in the UK.”

    Emotional maturity and morality will never develop under such conditions of unconditional entitlement and unearned privilege… Neither will the men footing the bill ever gain any deserved respect from women whom they indirectly support without reciprocation.