Year after year the assaults by left-wing ideologues – including feminists – on academia become ever stronger. We see this also in the field of taxpayer-funded scientific research, where initiatives to ‘encourage’ women into STEMM subjects, and then to propel them into more senior positions than they’re qualified for, are gathering pace. Initiatives such as Athena SWAN, on which we’ve reported, will ensure that taxpayer-funded research grants won’t be offered to institutions deemed to be insufficiently effective at meeting feminist-dictated recruitment and promotion targets which inevitably advantage female researchers at the expense of male researchers.

AVfM has just published an interesting 12-minute video of Harvey Silverglate, an American human rights lawyer and graduate of Harvard Law School, talking about the impact of the takeovers by left-wing ideologues of the faculties and administrations of major American universities – Harvard in particular – which is mirrored across most of the developed world, by all accounts.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/education/harvey-silverblade-of-f-i-r-e/

An excellent new piece by Peter Lloyd:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2519331/Critics-male-pill-wrong-It-end-conception-deception-empower-men-ultimate-sexual-revolution-says-Peter-Lloyd.html

The comment stream is well worth reading. AVfM have also posted the piece, and we can expect the comment stream there to be interesting too:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/critics-of-the-male-pill-are-wrong-it-would-end-conception-by-deception-empower-men-and-be-the-ultimate-sexual-revolution/

Here at the J4MB headquarters in Bath we sometimes spend a minute or two during afternoon tea – which starts at 3 p.m. precisely, a pot of Earl Grey leaf tea, McVities Digestives for all the staff, no need to change a winning formula – to review the Google search terms that have led people to our three sites. Sometimes they’re funny, sometimes revealing of people’s interests, and sometimes they’re just plain startling. An example of a startling one drew someone to the J4MB site earlier today:

Paternity fraud, whining men

It’s difficult to imagine this wasn’t Googled by a woman who thinks men faced with evidence of paternity fraud – and most men are unaware they’re victims of fraud, let’s not forget – should simply take on the financial and other responsibilities dumped on them by devious women.

So we thought we’d try the trusty old ‘gender switcheroo’ and see how that looked. What about ‘Maternity fraud, whining women’? Now how might a man cause a female-centred equivalent of paternity fraud? Well, he could frustrate a contraceptive method e.g. by putting a small hole in the end of a condom, in an effort to make his partner pregnant, at a time when she didn’t want to become pregnant. But even if he did, the woman would have choices (other than having the baby and caring for it) that he would have no say over:

– to have an abortion

– to carry to term, and have the baby adopted

Conversely, of course, a woman who commits the commonest form of paternity fraud – often by ‘forgetting’ to take the contraceptive pill – is perfectly free to require the man to support the resulting child financially and otherwise for 18+ years, whether or not she deigns to let him live with them or even see the child. The state will enforce her wishes, regardless of the financial and emotional abuse the man will face.

What of the other form of paternity fraud, where a man’s led by a woman to believe he’s the biological father of a child, when he’s not? Well, a doctor in hospital might swap a mother’s baby for another within a day or two of birth. Hell, they all look identical at that point in time, don’t they? The woman would then face the prospect of bringing up another woman’s baby, possibly for 18+ years.

Now let’s say either form of ‘maternity fraud’ eventually came to the attention of the woman in question. Would she ‘whine’? Dear God, we’d never hear the end of it. In the case of the second form of fraud, I have little doubt the medics in question would serve time in jail. At the very least they’d be struck off their professions’ registers. Conversely while paternity fraud – even attempted paternity fraud – has long been a criminal offence in the UK, not one British woman has ever been convicted of the offence.

Have a good weekend.

I made a contribution to a piece on Simon Hoban’s show yesterday. It starts at 2:56, following a professor talking about the associated research:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-s6n0zj9DQ

I made my contribution on a mobile phone, which is never ideal. Also, you never know on such programmes how long you’ll have to speak, so I’ve learned to get in key points as early as possible. The following text consists of the preparatory notes I made for the programme, and I managed to deliver more than a few of the key points in the short time available:

“I think the male pill is potentially a fantastic thing for men. Of course men would take the pill, if only because if they failed to do so for any reason, including forgetfulness, they could be paying the consequences for 18 years or more, if their partners became pregnant and decided to have the children. All the rights when it comes to reproductive issues belong to women, and no responsibilities. Men have no rights in this area, and whatever responsibilities women choose to land on them.

The male pill could stop two forms of paternity fraud, where women deceive men and become pregnant. But in practise it probably won’t, especially if men keep the pills in the home. I’ll explain why. A market will develop for pills which look identical but which have no contraceptive effect. Some women will substitute the real pills with the bogus pills, given the chance. For anyone who doubts that women could be so devious in their bids to become pregnant by men who don’t want to become fathers, we posted a piece some months ago about positive paternity test strips being sold on eBay. The buyers were women who wanted their partners to believe they were pregnant, with a view either to getting married, or to stop using contraception, and thereby become pregnant naturally.

We’ll be making proposals with respect to two forms of paternity fraud in the 2015 general election manifesto of the political party I lead, Justice for men & boys. The first type of fraud is where women cause contraceptive methods to fail, often by not taking the contraceptive pill, while they’re deceiving their partners into believing they’re still taking it. It’s also well-known some women use the contents of their partners’ used condoms in a bid to become pregnant. The Daily Mail columnist Liz Jones admitted to having done exactly that, though her efforts were unsuccessful. Her article made it clear that many women deceive their partners in a bid to become pregnant.

The second type of paternity fraud is where a woman leads a man to believe a child is biologically his, when it isn’t. It’s estimated that between 10% – 30% of British children are being supported financially and otherwise by men who’ve been misled into believing they’re children’s biological fathers. That must surely amount to millions of men in Britain today. Even attempting this form of paternity fraud is a criminal offence in the UK, but no British woman’s ever been convicted of the crime. The CSA alone learns of 500+ cases of fraud year each year, when men contest women’s claims they’re the fathers of individual children, they’ve demanded a paternity test, and thereby proven they’re not the children’s biological fathers. How many more men just trust the word of their ex-partners and as a result support other men’s kids – financially, emotionally etc. – for 18 years or more?”

Yesterday we posted a brief video clip of George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, briefly talking sense on the last episode of The Andrew Marr Show. We added a little commentary of our own:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YObFTW8pH_E

Following my piece on Antonia Hoyle’s outstanding article in today’s Daily Mail about the increasing number of male victims of domestic violence, I thought I’d send her a brief note thanking her for writing it. As happens all too often, it ended up being a fairly lengthy email, so at the end of it I asked for her permission that I publish the content in a new blog post. I had a very nice reply from her, which included, ‘Yes, please do post on the blog and include my email address antonia@antoniahoyle.com –  it would be good to hear from any men who may wish to share their experiences.’ So if you’ve been a male victim of DV, do please contact Antonia.

The rest of this piece consists of what I originally emailed Antonia:

“Antonia, I lead a political party which campaigns for better support of male victims of DV (without reducing the support for female victims, obviously) so I was very pleased to be pointed towards your outstanding article in today’s Daily Mail. I’ve just put up a blog post linking to it:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/why-are-so-many-men-becoming-victims-of-domestic-violence/

It’s known that for heterosexual couples, in 70% of instances of unilateral DV (the victim either takes the abuse, or exits) the perpetrator is a woman. It’s known that the cohort with the highest level of domestic violence is lesbians. In May 2013 it was reported that almost 300 studies, carried out across the world, have shown that women are at least as physically aggressive towards their intimate partners as men (I believe the number has since comfortably passed the 300 mark):

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/women-are-as-physically-aggressive-or-more-aggressive-in-their-relationships-with-spouses-or-male-partners/

Why is female-on-male DV on the rise? Maybe one contributory factor is that women are still rarely held accountable for it, and men are likely to just ‘take it’, especially if the couple has one or more children. If he leaves the home, he’ll lose the house and probably never see the kids again, although the state will force him to financially support them. Judges rarely enforce contact orders on vindictive mothers, and by the time contact orders are granted the kids will often have been alienated towards their father by the mother (very rarely vice versa, interestingly, however awful – even violent – the mother might be). Women are far less likely than men to be charged with the offence – the police’s default position is to believe a woman’s word over a man’s, so women get away with false allegations all the time – and if convicted, they’re far less likely than men to serve a custodial sentence. Having one of more children is generally a ‘Get out of Jail Free’ card for women. There are 80,000 men in British prisons, 4,000 women, and the government plans to close women’s prisons and fill them with male prisoners, while the women will be in far more comfortable ‘rehabilitation centres’.

Feminists claim that where women are the perpetrators of DV, it’s always in self-defence. Mankind Initiative recently ran a National Conference for Male Victims of Domestic Violence, at which a (female) researcher presented some findings from a recent major study. One astonishing finding was that only 4% of female perpetrators of DV said they’d acted in self-defence. She also said women are less likely than men to have the mental ‘mechanism’ which enables them to withdraw from a situation in which they’re becoming sufficiently angry as to be at risk of becoming physically violent. They just press on, as we see from some of the tragic cases in your piece.

It’s remarkable how seldom women are charged with murder of their intimate partners, and how often with manslaughter, carrying a lesser sentence in the event of conviction. I understand that following a change to the law late in the last Labour administration, at the behest of feminist MPs, a women has only to say she was fearful of her partner – no evidence need be given that fear was justified, if indeed it ever existed – and the charge will automatically be manslaughter rather than murder. At the same time the law was also changed such that the most common reason given by men for killing partners or ex-partners – provocation, and sexual infidelity in particular – was removed as a mitigating factor which would historically have led to a manslaughter charge, so such men have since been charged with murder. There truly is one justice system for men, and another for women.

Please let me know if I can supply any information on what our party’s doing – although Mark Brooks and others at Mankind Initiative are obviously far more qualified than myself to talk about male victims of DV. Our public consultation document (the precursor to our 2015 general election manifesto) is here:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/our-public-consultation-exercise-2/

Thanks again for the terrific article.”

I’ve just had a call from Simon Hoban, a presenter on BBC Radio Merseyside http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiomerseyside asking me to contribute to a discussion later today (around 4:45) about a possible forthcoming male contraceptive pill. I have, of course, agreed to contribute to the discussion. A Daily Mail piece about the pill:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2516989/Now-chemical-snip-Male-pill-works-like-vasectomy–girls-trust-men-it.html

The laughable question is being asked, could women trust men to take the pill? Well, if a man didn’t take it, he’d run the risk of financially maintaining a child he didn’t want for 18+ years – that’s if his partners didn’t choose to have an abortion, regardless of what the man wanted – so I think we can safely assume men won’t forget. As usual, men are held accountable for their actions and inactions. This is in stark contrast to the huge numbers of women who ‘forget’ to take the contraceptive pill – or frustrate other reliable contraceptive methods – in order to become pregnant by a man who doesn’t wish to become a father.

Daily Mail columnist Liz Jones admitted to using semen from the used condoms of ex-partners in (failed) attempts to become pregnant, and she reported how common it is for women to deceive and manipulate partners who don’t want to become fathers:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/one-night-after-sex-i-took-the-used-condom/

The state doesn’t force women to be responsible for children they don’t want, whether as a result of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, or otherwise. Likewise the state shouldn’t force men to be financially responsible for children unless they’ve made a prior legally binding commitment to be responsible for any children resulting from a sexual relationship, a proposal we have in our public consultation document.

It’s always worth reading anything written by Paul Elam, the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, and the following is no exception:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/a-brief-interview-with-the-university-of-oregon/

A lengthy and disturbing piece by Antonia Hoyle in today’s Daily Mail. Our thanks to S for pointing us to it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2518434/Why-MEN-victims-domestic-violence-Its-Britains-remaining-taboos-abuse-men-home-rise.html

I’ve just left the following comment, I don’t know if it will be passed by the moderators.

A powerful piece. Thank you.

“During a four-week trial at Lincoln Crown Court, two former boyfriends testified that Michelle had attacked them with knives. Charges had never been brought against her.”

WHY had charges never been brought against her? Is it even imaginable that if a man had attacked two girlfriends with knives, he wouldn’t be charged and serve a lengthy prison sentence? Of course not. One justice system for women, another for men.

With the Xmas season approaching, a 268 second long video of four men having fun with one piano, for our entertainment. Totally pointless, by any standard:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/men-do-totally-pointless-things-for-no-good-reason/