This video isn’t long (about 7 minutes) and worth watching right through. It’s good to see one of the latest range of Feminist Whine Cups make an appearance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RL9sgpm9hKc

I know it’s a lean time of year, but if you can make a donation to AVfM’s current quarterly fundraising campaign, however small, it will be put to very good use:

http://avoiceformen.com

Thank you.

[Note added 26.1.14: A Voice for Men published this piece:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/j4mb-presents-a-toady-award-to-nomas-national-organisation-for-men-against-sexism/ ]

There’s a group of people who live even deeper in the gender feminism sewer than female feminists – male feminists. The Denver-based National Organisation for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) is awash with these men, and claims roots going back to the mid-1970s. The organisation’s strapline:

Pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men’s lives.

A pro-feminist organisation ‘enhancing men’s lives’. You couldn’t make it up, could you?

It would be inadvisable to look through their website http://nomas.org soon after eating a meal, but the thread that runs through it is that men have to change in order that women may become yet more advantaged than they are already – although of course that’s not the spin the website puts on it. The Reading List contains 21 books and papers by Michael Kimmel alone – an internationally infamous feminist poodle. Here’s a taster of what these geniuses believe (from ‘Tenets’):

Whatever psychological burden men have to overcome, women are still the most universal and direct victims of our patriarchy. Our organization must take a highly visible and energetic position in support of women’s struggle for equality. Our movement was born directly out of and continually nourished by feminism. Even if we could not see any pragmatic ways in which we as men could benefit from an end to traditional patriarchy (and we can see many), most of us would strongly support women’s struggle, simply because it is so unquestionably just and right. Our support for women’s rights and specific women’s issues must be vigorous and unmistakable.

Needless to say there aren’t just vile men in NOMAS, there are vile women too, presumably there to stamp hard on any early signs of independent thought amongst the men. Here’s NOMAS’s piece on male victims of domestic abuse http://www.nomas.org/node/220:

Not a Two-Way street: Men are NOT the victims of what is meant by Domestic Violence and Abuse

Just as some mental problems are more prevalent among women (e.g. depression) or men (e.g. alcoholism); many crimes are very, very highly correlated with gender. Men commit near 100% of forcible rapes, 90% of murders, etc. It is a simple fact that men are usually larger and physically stronger than their female partners. It is true that men are far more often raised to enjoy and practice fighting, boxing and wrestling skills. Far more significantly, we live in a world where men globally have dominated women, physically, politically and economically, a stubbornly-held patriarchal domination which is deeply rooted in history and pre-history. So it is hardly surprising that men are the perpetrators of controlling or violent partner abuse.

But there is an adage in journalism that “When a dog bites a man, that’s not News; but when a man bites a dog, that’s News!” So perhaps on that impulse, the national press has always had a seeming fascination with the lurid possibility of “battered husbands” and frequently run articles with quotes and citations suggesting that this is a real but hidden problem. Many of these originate from so-called “Men’s Rights” groups, which proclaim that there are just as many battered husbands as battered wives. (The problem is not seen they say because the battered husbands are always just too embarrassed to tell anyone. As if women aren’t!)

Incredibly, in response to these claims, some funding for battered women’s programs has been reduced, on the grounds that equal funding should go to battered men. More indirectly, some authors and agencies and legislators have sought to linguistically de-gender the crime, describe it in phrases like “family violence,” and obfuscate the reality that this is a crime that men commit against women. (Domestic abuse among Lesbian and Gay male couples does also occur of course.)

Are there instances in which men are physically dominated and assaulted by their female partners? This does occur, often when a man has become weakened by a factor such as illness, injury, or old age. Even in these circumstances abuse by a woman is unusual and when it does occur, it is most often motivated by self defense, fighting back and other protections. Even in these instances, the language “battered husbands” is not useful especially in light of the thousands and even millions of women known to have suffered or been murdered at the hands of a male abuser.

Anyone familiar with the statistics on domestic abuse will know most of the piece is feminist-inspired nonsense. Let’s just concentrate on this element:

Are there instances in which men are physically dominated and assaulted by their female partners? This does occur, often when a man has become weakened by a factor such as illness, injury, or old age. Even in these circumstances abuse by a woman is unusual and when it does occur, it is most often motivated by self defense, fighting back and other protections.

As we’ve repeated many times, official statistics (in the UK) show 70% of the perpetrators of uni-directional domestic violence (the victim ‘takes it’ or exits the situation) are women. Only 4% of women who’ve abused their intimate partners report self-defence as a motivation. There’s also the issue that around 300 studies have shown that compared with men, women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, towards their intimate partners:

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

The cohort of people with the highest reported levels of domestic violence are lesbians. What do the geniuses at NOMAS have to say on this?

Domestic abuse among Lesbian and Gay male couples does also occur of course.

It ‘does also occur of course’. Wow.

From time to time we present ‘Toady’ awards to male collaborators with gender feminists. David Cameron won the award in 2012 and 2013, and the bookmakers are giving short odds on him winning again in 2014. We haven’t given a Toady award to an organisation before, but NOMAS is clearly a very worthy winner. Here’s their certificate:

131229 Toady award presented to NOMAS

I’ll send NOMAS a link to this post and invite them to engage with J4MB if they want to learn the truth about domestic abuse or any of the other areas where their analysis is demonstrably ridiculous. We won’t hold our breath waiting for a response.

Our thanks to J for pointing us to yet another story for the ‘You couldn’t make this s*** up!’ file.

The Thomas the Tank Engine books were written by the Reverend Wilbert Awdry, an English vicar, in the 1940s. Here we have shadow transport secretary Mary Creagh MP convincingly presenting the case for there to be fewer female MPs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529783/Thomas-Tank-Engine-blamed-lack-female-train-drivers-engines-male-says-Labour-minister.html

Ms Creagh has clearly been overdosing on the Stupid pills. Let’s analyse a few extracts from the article:

‘There is a preponderance of men in the transport industry and I am very keen to unpack some of the myths that stop women from taking up what are often highly-paid and highly-skilled jobs,’ she said.

Ah, that’s it, highly-paid jobs. She doesn’t care about the ‘preponderance of men’ in – say – the low-paid waste disposal industry, one must assume.

Ms Creagh said that the tales of the little blue steam engine should follow the example of CBeebies series Underground  Ernie, which features a main character called Victoria.

She also suggested that train companies could up the numbers of female drivers by advertising in women’s interest magazines,  or offering more part-time posts.

Advertising in women’s interest magazines. Yes, I can see Ms Fawcett idly flicking through her new copy of Bolshy Harpy Monthly and penning an application after spotting the advert.

Offering more part-time posts. Yes, that would make sense. There’s nothing quite like increasing the number of female employees (part-time ones, in particular) to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of organisations, is there? Such a success in the NHS.

Let’s introduce some FACTS into this, shall we?

Four in seven unemployed people are men.

Unemployment is a bigger driver of suicide among men than among women.

Three times more men than women commit suicide every year in the UK.

Suicide is the #1 cause of death of young men.

Many young men would jump at the chance to become train drivers.

Here are three alternative ideas for Ms Creagh to consider once the effects of her Stupid pills have worn off:

Save long-suffering taxpayers’ money by NOT advertising in women’s interest magazines. British men pay 72% of the income taxes paid in the UK, women only 28%.

Don’t offer more part-time posts.

Preference unemployed young men, and unemployed men who’d previously been their families’ primary breadwinners, to become train drivers and work full-time.

MPs are about to be awarded significant salary increases. If Ms Creagh were on the minimum wage, she’d be overpaid. Maybe it’s time to add another category of awards to our ‘Whiny Woman of the Month’ and ‘Harpy’ awards:

Stupid Woman of the Month

So many obvious contenders. Ms Creagh could be the inaugural winner. Harriet Harman would, of course, receive a Lifetime Achievement award, to sit on her mantelpiece right next to her ‘Harpy’ Lifetime Achievement award:

120401 the inaugural Harpy Lifetime Achievement award

 

[Note: the material on this blog piece was later published, on 6.1.14, by ‘A Voice for Men’:

 

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/tough-new-domestic-violence-laws-proposed-for-britain/

 

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

 

Our thanks to Greg for pointing us to this piece in today’s Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/28/domestic-violence-new-law-jail-term

We could find only the following gender-specific statements in the fairly lengthy piece (726 words). Feminist fingerprints are all over both the article and the proposed new bill:

Supporters of the new bill say it would encourage more women to report a crime which is often neglected by the criminal justice system…

Supporters say this would encourage more women to report a crime…

Now the proposed law would provide a legal framework that would make domestic abuse a specific offence and would allow for the examination of an offender’s course of conduct over a period of time. Supporters say this would encourage more women to report a crime that is often neglected by the criminal justice system, sometimes with tragic consequences…

According to the Home Office, some 1.2 million women in the UK said they had experienced domestic abuse last year. Two out of three incidents involved repeat victims. Two women are killed by a partner, ex-partner or lover each week. Last year 400,000 women were sexually assaulted, of whom 70,000 were victims of rape or attempted rape.

Home Office statistics cover both female and male victims of domestic abuse, of course, so why is there only female victim data in this article? Because feminists. Because Guardian pro-feminist anti-male bias. Even by the standards we’re become accustomed to with respect to reporting of gender matters in the Guardian, this marks a new low in ideologically-driven reporting.

Infinitely more important than the feminist-inspired gender bias of the article, the proposed legislation will inevitably result in huge numbers of miscarriages of injustice against men. A few observations on the legislation, and predictions on how the police and the courts system will respond to it:

1. A new area for false allegations is created. This will be a charter for malicious women (who haven’t been abused) to make false domestic abuse allegations – in effect, to abuse their partners, possibly not for the first time. In the vast majority of cases, who but the two people involved will know the truth? Which will the police and the courts believe?
2. Most domestic abuse is reciprocal, but most people reporting the abuse will be women, as currently. Being the first partner to report the abuse, the woman will be more likely to be believed by the police, quite aside from the default presumption (never admitted publicly, of course) of the police that women are more likely than men to tell the truth.
3. 70% of the victims of uni-directional domestic abuse (the victims ‘take it’ or exit the situation) are men. But we know from British Crime Survey statistics that men are far less likely than women to report abuse, often because they know that if they did so, their relationships would end, and it’s likely they’ll never see their children again. If after a prolonged series of attacks over time an exasperated man finally lost control and struck his partner, whose account of events would the police believe? The woman’s, inevitably. The police would point out that the man hadn’t reported being a victim of abuse to them previously, so his version of events couldn’t be trusted.
4. The maximum prison term of 14 years is grotesquely high. A woman who kills her partner in cold blood – e.g. by plunging a kitchen knife into his chest while he slept – need only claim she’d ‘feared’ him, by way of mitigation. She need produce no evidence that she had any grounds to fear him. The charge will then automatically be downgraded from murder to manslaughter, and she’ll probably serve under five years with good behaviour. A man, by contrast, under the proposed domestic abuse legislation, could serve 14 years for domestic abuse. It’s utterly inconceivable that even in the most grotesque cases any woman would serve 14 years.
5. As with other offences, men will be far more likely than women to be charged, regardless of the weight of evidence. They’ll be more likely to be convicted. They’ll be more likely to be incarcerated, and if they are, they’ll serve much longer sentences.

This is nothing less than a major intensification of the state-sponsored and state-enforced war against British men. The balance of power in intimate relationships between men and women already favours women strongly. It’s about to tilt women’s way yet further. Vast numbers of British women are going to exercise that additional power, and ruthlessly. Not only marriage (and the nuclear family with it) are dying. This legislation will in time prove to be a death sentence for unmarried couples’ relationships.

The state, and gender feminists, will be happy with nothing less.

[Note added 29.12.13 – AVfM published an interesting piece on the same topic:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/as-expected-physical-fitness-standards-lowered-and-delayed-again-for-female-us-military-members/comment ]

The largest number of files with the same title at the J4MB HQ are those titled, ‘You couldn’t make this s*** up!’ We now fill a new file most weeks, and we anticipate needing a dedicated filing cabinet for them before long.

When I first learned of the female Marines story a few minutes ago – on Men’s Rights Reddits http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/new/– I honestly thought it must be a resurrected April Fools’ Day spoof. It’s not. Chinese military planners must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of the coming feminisation of the US Marines. I’m guessing the Taiwanese are less happy.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/female-marines-not-required-do-1-pull

[Note: the material on this blog piece was later published, on 27.1.14, by ‘A Voice for Men’:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/karen-woodall-gender-based-family-services-killing-children-in-the-uk/

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

Karen Woodall is a highly-respected British family counsellor who has worked with vulnerable children and their families since 1991. Her personal profile:

http://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/

Our thanks to T for pointing us to a piece published by Karen a couple of months ago.

https://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/gender-biased-family-services-killing-children-in-the-uk/

The piece relates primarily to the killing of children by their (biological) mothers, which happens in the UK on the same scale as the killing of children by their (biological) fathers. The difference is that when women kill their own children, it’s assumed (by social workers, the media…) that there must be external explanations – abuse by a male partner, severe mental health issues… – so these women are untypical of women in general. In stark contrast, when men kill their own children, no external explanations are necessary – they’re typical of men in general.

Some extracts from Karen’s piece, which take up the remainder of this blog piece:

The reports of Filicide, the murder by a mother of her child, are all over the news this week.

Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Hamzah Khan, Keanu Williams being just four names that are engraved upon our consciousness, not just because of their untimely deaths, but because of the nature of the suffering inflicted upon them before they died.

Collective handwringing is in evidence up and down the land and who is to blame is being widely discussed.  The sight of the Head of Birmingham Children’s Safeguarding Board attempting to squirm out of the reality of her responsibility for allowing yet another death of a child to happen on her watch, was excruciating on the BBC news last night.  Her words, in a statement released this week scream out the reality of why children are dying.

‘I wish, on behalf of all the statutory agencies who sit on the Board to express very deep regret and distress about Keanu’s death. We apologise unequivocally for what were totally unacceptable and unnecessary failures both collectively and individually in every organisation which had contact with Keanu. We fully accept all the findings of the Serious Case Review and the recommendations made.

Keanu died because there was failure across every agency to see, hear and respond to him in the context of what he was experiencing at any one point in time. Staff were distracted by his mother’s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value.’

‘Staff were distracted by his baby’s) mother’s needs and by taking what she was telling them at face value.’ In other words, a systemic use of gender biased practise which focuses practitioners not on the needs of children, but on the needs and rights of women. If ever there was proof needed that social work and our children and family services are, as a very senior social worker said recently, a ‘feminist industry’, this is it. Gender biases family services, upholding the rights and needs of women above those of children, are killing those children in a neighbourhood near you and until we name it, we are never going to stop it…

Gender biased family services kill kids by working from the feminist perspective of seeing a woman who is vulnerable instead of a woman who is dangerous to her children. Gender biased family services kill kids by refusing to look the reality in the face, that mothers can and do kill their children and intervention to prevent it starts with believing it.  Gender biased services kill kids because they spend too much time looking for a man to blame and seeing domestic violence as the root cause of all dangers to children.

The children who die at the hands of their mothers are the vulnerable ones, not the other way around and we should be acting to support them first before we analyse and excuse maternal responsibility.  I have no doubt whatsoever that women, like men who kill their children, need an awful lot of work doing to reverse the impact of being so divorced from their own humanity, that they can act without thinking and often without remorse.

Our thanks to B – a supporter in the Far East – for pointing us to this interesting piece in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920?mod=trending_now_5

Paglia was the authoress of this gem, repeated in the WSJ piece:

“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”

 

Ellie Slee, a Huffington Post contributor, recently won our ‘Whiny Woman of the Month’ award in part due to her refusal to retract a misleading statement about J4MB – that we refer to women as ‘gestational incubators’. We never have done so, we don’t now, and we never would. We politely pointed out to her that her statement was factually untrue, asked her to retract it, and she refused to do so. We’ve emailed the legal team at the Huffington Post saying that if the statement isn’t publicly retracted, we’ll be taking legal advice on the matter.

Ms Slee is evidently keen to carry on in the same vein. In a recent ‘tweet’ she referred to me as a ‘rape denier’. A copy of the sequence in which her claim appeared:

131228 Ellie Slee’s Twitter stream

I’ve asked Ms Slee (through her Twitter stream) for evidence to back up her outrageous and libellous claim, but given that no such evidence exists, we’ll be taking legal advice over this too – unless she both retracts the statement and makes a full public apology in a form of words acceptable to us by 6 January, emailed to us at mike@j4mb.org.uk and communicated to her Twitter followers (unaltered) in a ‘tweet’.

Our thanks to R for pointing us to this remarkable story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529695/Mother-wins-right-stay-UK-baby-girl-stabbed.html

The Bangladeshi woman married her cousin in the UK. From the article:

Despite speaking no English and having never been to Britain before, she moved to be with him in a maisonette in Tower Hamlets, East London. Their daughter was born in June 2008. The marriage was unhappy and in March 2009 the 30-year-old’s husband presented her with a one-way ticket for her to return to Bangladesh. He also obtained a court order banning her from taking the child out of the country.

The mother told relatives she would kill the baby and kill herself rather than be separated from her daughter, saying: ‘If I can’t have her then no-one will.’ Her husband left her alone with the child and returned to find her stabbing the girl in the stomach. He grabbed the child and ran upstairs with her – with the mother chasing after him with the knife – before she was overpowered by his brother.

The Old Bailey heard she left a 1.6in stab wound and the baby would have died if the thrust had not caught one of her ribs. Afterwards the woman asked her husband: ‘Why couldn’t you come in later? Then I could have finished her off?’, the court heard.

She was jailed for five years for attempted murder. After she was released:

… the family courts gave her the right to see her daughter under tight supervision for an hour three times a year – and she has now won the right to stay in Britain permanently. A judge ruled it would be ‘very cruel’ to stop her from seeing the child. She won her case using Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a private and family life.

A woman who tried to murder her nine-month-old baby girl has more ‘human rights’ than vast numbers of loving fathers who are denied access to their children by the family courts system. How is their treatment by the system not even more cruel? And the treatment of their children likewise, at the hands of a courts system which doesn’t require vindictive malicious mothers to behave like responsible adults.

The article refers to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is downloadable through this link:

131227 European Convention on Human Rights

Article 8 of the Convention states:

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

If the multiple ways in which fathers in the UK are assaulted by the family courts system don’t infringe both sections of Article 8, I’m a profiterole.

M’s on a roll… it’s proving difficult to keep up with him. From the United States:

http://wreg.com/2013/05/02/79415/

Juvenile Court magistrate Nancy Kessler allegedly told the man she found it very ‘distasteful’ he was ‘bastardizing’ the child. Hadn’t the mother of the child done that in the first place? Why should a man be criticised for objecting to financially support another man’s child? Would anyone criticise a woman for objecting to financially support another woman’s child? Of course not. It would be unthinkable.

In the UK one form of paternity fraud, persuading a man (or seeking to persuade a man) that he’s the biological father of a child, when he isn’t, has long been a criminal offence. The CSA alone has kept track of cases where men – alleged to be the fathers of individual children – have appealed and demanded paternity tests, often proved their non-paternity. For many years over 500+ such cases p.a. have come to light through this process, as we discovered following a FoI request we made earlier this year.

How many women have been ever been convicted of this crime in the UK? Regular readers of this blog could probably guess the answer. Not one. The Crown Prosecution Service takes the stance that there’s no ‘public interest’ in bringing cases, regardless of the evidence. Yet again, women aren’t being held legally accountable for their actions.

This form of paternity fraud, along with another form – frustrating contraceptive methods in order to become pregnant – is commonplace. It’s believed that up to 30% of children being raised in the UK are being supported financially and otherwise by men who’ve been misled into believing they’re the children’s biological fathers:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/paternity-fraud-how-common-is-it/

We’re calling for compulsory paternity testing at birth – only then will we know the true scale of the fraud – and for men to have financial liability for a child only if they’ve legally committed in advance to bear that liability, in the event of a pregnancy occurring in the course of a relationship.

In time we’ll have the male contraceptive pill:

https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/the-male-contraceptive-pill/

When it arrives, men will at last enjoy the same reproductive rights which women have enjoyed since the late 1960s.