In area after area, decade after decade, we see women not being held properly accountable for the crimes they commit. They’re less likely than men to be charged with crimes. If and when they’re charged, the justice system treats them far more leniently than men who commit the same crimes, and is far less likely to incarcerate them. The government plans to close women’s prisons altogether, and house female offenders in comfortable ‘rehabilitation centres’ near their families. The existing women’s prisons will then be used to house more male prisoners.

Women’s lack of accountability under the law is particularly evident with respect to crimes they carry out in the home environment, as we see in the case of female perpetrators of domestic abuse, allied with the absence of support for male victims. Police are far less likely to pursue men’s allegations of domestic abuse than women’s allegations.

Following communications with a number of supporters, a small number of whom were sexually abused as children by their mothers, we intend to do what we can to raise public awareness of the sexual abuse of children by women. The proportion of sexual abuse of children carried out by women – and by mothers in particular – is far higher than generally supposed, and we’ll be pulling together some research findings on the matter in the coming weeks and months.

Feminists portray male paedophiles as evil, indicating something fundamentally wrong with the psyches of men in general. It’s related to their ‘All men are rapists’ narrative. Conversely they portray female paedophiles as psychologically damaged women, presumably damaged by abusive men.

A supporter recently pointed us to the response he received from his local police authority to a Freedom of Information Act request he’d sent them. In the preceding year 86 men had been convicted of sexual offences against children. The number of women convicted for sexual offences against children shouldn’t surprise any regular followers of this website.

Nil.

We end with a reference to a famous paper in the field of sexual abuse of children by women, published almost 30 years ago:

Petrovich, M., & Templer, D. (1984). Heterosexual molestation of children who later become rapists. Psychological Reports, 54(3), 810.

A link to the report is here. Among the paper’s findings was that out of 83 incarcerated (male) rapists, 49 (59%) had been sexually abused as children by women. As we often find, women and girls as well as men and boys suffer from the consequences of women not being held properly accountable for their actions.

Yet more lunacy, part of a scheme costing the taxpayer £25 million:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25300669

From the article:

“Only around a quarter of students on engineering master’s courses are women,” said Brunel engineering lecturer, Petra Gratton. “Bluntly speaking, that has to change if UK engineering is going to continue to compete as successfully as it currently does… While some may see this as positive discrimination the stark reality is that UK plc can no longer afford not to exploit fully this enormous potential talent pool.”

Some may see this as positive discrimination? Who wouldn’t? Four out of seven unemployed people in the UK are men, unemployment is a major driver of suicide among men – more so than among women – three times more men than women in the UK commit suicide every year… and here we have one of the few remaining male-dominated professions discriminating against men. It’s time to join up the dots. In this and many other ways, the state is leading men to kill themselves in large numbers – suicide is the leading cause of death among young men – although men collectively pay 72% of the income tax which largely finances the state.

The £15,000 p.a. additional grant will be paid to female postgraduates solely on account of their gender. So a female student from a rich family will get the grant, while a male student from a poor family won’t. From the piece:

A spokesman for Brunel added that the university was trying to dispel the myth that engineers spend most of their time on site, wearing hard hats.

“At advanced level, engineering is very much an office-based profession, where the emphasis is working with teams on a collaborative basis. These skills are areas where women have traditionally excelled.”

I’ve yet to see any evidence that women have ‘traditionally excelled’ at teamwork in a way that leads to improved economic performance. If there were any truth in this fantasy, the senior reaches of our major companies would have long been dominated by women.

Would female engineering graduates not understand by the end of their engineering courses, what being an engineer was about? Are they really that stupid? Give me strength. Let’s read between the lines in that extract, shall we? Women clearly prefer to be in nice cosy offices than ‘on site, wearing hard hats’, which presumably mess up their hair?

The reality is surely that by the time these women graduate, they understand perfectly well what the life of an engineer entails, and that’s why they’re quitting the profession they were suckered into entering in the first place – suckered by taxpayer-funded initiatives aimed at getting more women to study STEMM subjects. Now it seems the only way to persuade these women to undertake postgraduate engineering studies is for long-suffering taxpayers to bribe them with an additional £15,000 pa because they have vaginas, rather than penises. They must be so proud of their genital achievements.

It’s not just the state that’s relentlessly pursuing this direction of travel. Professional bodies in engineering and other male-dominated professions are discriminating again men, although men surely represent the majority of their existing membership. Our public challenge of Nick Baveystock, the director general of the Institution of Civil Engineers, remains unanswered to this day:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/our-public-challenge-to-nick-baveystock-director-general-of-the-institution-of-civil-engineers/

An excellent new piece by Janet Bloomfield:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/us-national-survey-more-men-than-women-victims-of-intimate-partner-violence/

A gem of a piece by Clint Carpentier. As always with pieces published by AVfM, it’s worth checking out the comments section.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/wives-demand-what-the-farce-of-household-equality/

An appalling tale related by Ben Spencer for the Daily Mail about a father who’s spent 12 years and £100,000 – unlike his former partner, he’s not entitled to Legal Aid – trying to see his daughter, now 14. His former partner has failed to comply with 82 court orders:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520410/Father-rights-Mother-stops-seeing-daughter-12-YEARS–despite-82-court-orders-demanding-down.html

From the middle of the piece:

Lord Justice McFarlane, presenting a written  judgment, said the mother had ‘doggedly refused to allow M to develop and  maintain a relationship with her father without any good reason’.

He quoted the findings of a child  psychiatrist, who said: ‘The mother appears to want an unhealthy exclusive  relationship with M. The mother hides her opposition to contact behind her  daughter’s stated “wishes and feelings”.’

From the end of the piece:

The judgment revealed that since 2006 there  had been 82 court orders for contact, seven judges had handled the case, and at  least ten social workers had represented the girl.

Lord Justice McFarlane added:  ‘This is an unimpeachable father against whom no adverse findings of fact have  been made at any stage in this process and whose demeanour before this court was  dignified and measured despite the enormous frustration and anger he must  feel.’

The judge, who was sitting with Lord Justice  Briggs and Lord Justice Aikens, said the mother had been diagnosed with an  emotionally unstable personality disorder, paranoid traits and occasional  depression.

Lord Justice McFarlane added: ‘These have not  been helped by occasions when she has abused alcohol and illicit drugs.’ At one  stage, he said, the mother had been found to have hidden knives in her  bag.

Lord Justice Aikens added: ‘The family  justice system has failed the whole family, but particularly M, whose childhood  has been irredeemably marred by years of litigation.’

Why is the woman not in prison for the abuse she’s heaped on her daughter and her ex-partner over 12 years?

An interesting six-minute-long piece from Russia Today:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/male-birth-control-pill-is-on-the-horizon/

Our thanks to C for pointing us to this story. We know paternity fraud – whether attempted or realised – is commonplace. In the UK it’s also a criminal offence, but no woman has ever been convicted of it. We were interested to read a story from Canada, dating back to January 2013. It concerns that rarest of crimes, attempted maternity fraud. A Canadian man frustrated a contraceptive method – he put holes in the end of his condoms – his partner duly became pregnant, and he was jailed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257162/Man-poked-holes-condoms-girlfriend-pregnant-looses-appeal-assault-charge.html

Now this is the most startling element in the story:

The province’s Court of Appeal ruled on the  verdict yesterday 4-1, supported by Chief Justice Michael MacDonald’s  explanation that ‘the alleged victim must be fully aware of the exact nature of  the proposed sexual activity.’

But one judge who disagreed warned  that this  decision would have dangerous repercussions on women who secretly stop taking  the pill to get pregnant.

‘The majority’s reasons… have the potential  for increased, and potentially unwarranted, criminalization,’ wrote Justice  David Farrar. ‘Expanding  criminal liability in this way would represent a  dramatic step  backwards.’

In his email C made the following comments about the dissenting judge. A good point, well made, we think:

In Justice David Farrar’s opinion, it’s fine to punish men as long as the consequences mean that you are not forced to punish women for the same offence. This is the most blatant example of double standards I have ever seen.

[Note: the material on this blog piece was later published, on 20.12.13, by ‘A Voice for Men’:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/qantas-places-women-in-its-management-sp-reduces-credit-rating-to-junk/

The comment stream is worth reading, as usual with AVfM.]

We now know a good deal about the impact of increasing female representation on corporate boards. Longitudinal studies (the only ones of any relevance, as they separate causation from correlation) of companies in the United States, Germany and Norway show it leads to corporate financial decline. Our briefing paper on the matter has the Abstracts and URLs of five such studies:

http://c4mb.wordpress.com/improving-gender-diversity-on-boards-leads-to-a-decline-in-corporate-performance-the-evidence/

Across the developed world major corporations are increasing female representation on their boards and senior executive levels, sometimes under government pressure, sometimes not. For anyone with an interest in this subject we suggest spending some time on the website of our associated initiative, Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com.

We’re indebted to M, a supporter who lives in Eastern Europe, for pointing us to some intriguing pieces. He’s just come up with a new one, a real gem, relating to Qantas. From Wikipedia’s entry on the company:

Qantas Airways Limited is the flag carrier of Australia. The name was originally ‘QANTAS’, an acronym for ‘Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services’. Nicknamed ‘The Flying Kangaroo’, Qantas is Australia’s largest airline, the oldest continuously operated airline in the world, and the second oldest in the world overall… Qantas carries a 65% share of the Australian domestic market and carries 18.7% of all passengers travelling in and out of Australia.

Qantas has been going through turbulent times (pun intended). With fairly stable revenues and passenger numbers, it moved from an A$249 million profit after tax in 2010/11, to losses of A$244 million in 2011/12, and a derisory profit of just A$6 million in 2012/13. Also from Wikipedia:

In August 2011 the company announced that, due to financial losses and a decline in market share, major structural changes would be made. Up to 1,000 jobs would be lost in Australia…

The last thing Qantas would need in such difficult times would be time-consuming and distracting initiatives to drive up female representation on its board and senior executive levels. Under government pressure, however, that’s exactly what it’s faced for years, since at least 1999. Our thanks to M for pointing us to a 24-page document which will be depressing reading for any normal intelligent person – gender feminists, by contrast, will love it – Qantas’s 2011/12 report to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA):

131207 Qantas 201112 report

To protect your sanity we’ve extracted from the document just a little of the content, from p.3:

Introduction

The Qantas Group is covered by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 (Commonwealth) and to comply with the Act is required to:

– Develop an equal opportunity for women in the workplace program

– Report annually (by 31 May) to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) on the program and its effectiveness.

The report is being submitted on behalf of the Qantas Group and covers our workplace program gender diversity activities during the reporting period 1 April 2011 – 31 March 2012.

Diversity Highlights for 2011/2012 

Representation:

– The Qantas Board of Directors appointed one additional woman, increasing female representation to 25%, up by 8% since the last reporting period.

– Qantas has 57% female representation on the Qantas Foundation Board, as 4 of the 7 Directors are women.

– 2 of the 10 Directors of the Qantas Superannuation Board, including the Chairman are women, representing 20% of the Board.

– During the reporting period, the number of women employed on the Qantas Executive Committee (ExCo), reporting directly to the CEO increased to 3 or 27%. This is a significant increase from having zero representation 3 years ago in 2009.

– Qantas’ Company Secretary is female.

– The number of women in Senior Management roles (levels 2-4 in Table A) increased by 2% to 29% during the reporting period.

<End of extract. We apologise for inflicting that on you.>

So what’s been the consequence of the relentless march of women into senior roles at Qantas, both before and during the period in which the company has faced severe financial difficulties? Well, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) have just cut Qantas’s credit rating to ‘junk’ (link below). Oops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25252286

In an effort to pour salt into Qantas’s wounds, Australia’s government is refusing to bail out the company, despite having assaulted it with gender diversity initiatives since at least 1999. We expect this matter will be resolved by an Asian company – probably a Chinese one – taking over Qantas, and immediately cancelling all such stupid initiatives. We assume that Australian feminists, and the politicians who’ve pandered to them for so long, are proud to have brought a once-great company to its knees.

As time goes on, across the developed world, we’ll see ever more examples of major companies being destroyed by gender diversity initiatives, and the Chinese in particular buying the assets at rock-bottom prices.

I’ve recently had a lengthy series of emails with a supporter who lives in the West Country. He claims quite extraordinary abuses of father’s rights by feminist social workers at his local council’s children’s services department, a story we hope to report in detail one day, but can’t at the present time.

The man reports that the Dorset Echo routinely follows feminist narratives without criticism, and rarely shows any interests in abuses of men’s rights. This is no different from the vast majority of the press media and mainstream online media, it has to be said. But what intrigued me was that for the past two years he’s been posting inoffensive comments – inoffensive to normal intelligent people, not hate-driven gender feminists – following pieces in the online edition of the paper, and they’ve routinely been deleted, and his account blocked. The extent of censorship of his comments is extraordinary.

He’s been forced to comment using dozens of pseudonyms because of the constant censorship and account deletions. Examples of comments being deleted include those with links to information and statistics about domestic violence which prove gender feminist narratives since the early 1970s to be variously conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions and myths. They include links to materials produced by such internationally renowned figures as ManWomanMyth and Erin Pizzey. At the same time comments left by gender feminists, some of them blatantly anti-male, aren’t removed.

Our supporter suggested it might be worth linking to the ‘Reclaim the Night’ article he was deleted from. In his comments he pointing out that the event was effectively calling all men potential rapists and violent, while men were barred from the event, and money only given to women’s refuges:

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10832331.Women_march_through_Dorchester_to_end_violence_against_women/

Our supporter invites other men’s human rights advocates (MHRAs) to join him in monitoring and rebutting feminist propaganda on the Dorset Echo. Comments from another commenter (micke12) were also deleted after he’d detailed the torment and abuse he’d experienced at the hands of social workers.

I myself added some comments following a recent interesting piece by Samantha Harman in the paper, and none were deleted, unlike most of the comments from David Devinghy, our supporter’s latest pseudonym – his latest account has been blocked, predictably. The piece:

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10846389.Care_scandal__Dorset_County_Counci/

I suspect the only reason my comments haven’t been deleted is that I lead a political party. Do you really have to lead a political party to enable your comments to be kept online in this day and age? We’re seeing abuses of free speech on an astonishing scale at this newspaper and countless others. We’ve taken a copy of the entire comments stream (following the paper’s comment deletions) and if any more comments are deleted – including my own – we’ll publish them on this blog.

So, who’s removing comments made by people providing evidence which contradict feminist narratives? They’re the paper’s moderators – generally, in my experience, women. They may well be acting on their own initiative, relishing their power to delete comments and block people’s accounts. But sometimes they’re prompted by others to remove comments.

On 28 November I emailed the following letter to the paper’s Group Editor Toby Granville toby.granville@newsquestdorset.co.uk:

131128 letter to the Editor of the Dorset Echo

We exchanged a few emails and in one of my last ones I offered to send him ‘screen grabs’ of a number of Mr Devinghy’s comments any reasonable person would consider inoffensive, and he replied:

I have seen the comments so there is no need for me to see the screen grabs.

The comments were deleted following complaints.

If Mr Devinghy wishes to appeal against his suspension himself he is welcome to do so.

Aside from that, as I have said, I consider the matter closed.

‘Following complaints’. Given that feminists – gender feminists in particular – are so active in complaining, Mr Granville is basically giving them free rein to have materials they deem objectionable deleted from comment streams in his paper, and the commenters’ accounts blocked. If this is free speech, I’m an avocado dip. Is it any wonder the truth-seeking public is deserting the press media in favour of online media – not the online editions of print newspapers, but websites which relentless expose feminist narratives and censoring activities, such as ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com.

‘Mr Devinghy’ is understandably disinclined to appeal against his suspension, given he’s had two years of his comments being deleted, and dozens of accounts blocked. And so it is that I shall shortly be emailing Mr Granville with this post, in which I make the following public challenge:

Mr Granville, could we please have your written commitment that your paper will cease deleting comments solely on the grounds that feminists – and gender feminists in particular, who are female supremacists driven by misandry – file ‘complaints’? To continue as you are will be to continue giving feminists free rein to censor the comment streams in the online edition of your paper. Thank you.

AVfM have published a very short but insightful piece inspired by gender feminist campaigns:

– ‘Stop victim blaming’ – women must never bear any personal responsibility with respect to their actions and/or inactions preceding sexual assaults

– ‘Teach men not to rape’

– Slutwalks

The piece:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/memewalk-quit-blaming-kids/

It’s remarkable how often widely accepted narratives involving women are self-evidently ridiculous when you switch ‘women’ for another group – in this case, children.