The other day we reported on the case of a 54-year-old alcoholic British woman who attacked her mother, a suffered from dementia. The poor woman died some time later. The daughter was given a prison sentence of just 18 months.

We move onto a piece from Canada. Meredith Borowiec killed her newborn babies in 2008 and 2009. Their bodies were never found, but are assumed to be in landfill somewhere. In 2010 she tried to kill another of her newborn babies, but it was found by her boyfriend in time. He’d heard the sound of the baby crying in a dumpster. The full story:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/justice-canadian-style/

Meredith Borowiec’s prison sentence? The same as the British woman who’d killed her dementia-suffering mother… 18 months.

An excellent new piece by Jan Moir:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2549137/JAN-MOIR-How-dare-sisterhood-attack-Aunty-Irma-wise-words-rape.html

Feminists discourage women from taking any responsibility for themselves, spinning absurd narratives such as ‘Men can stop rape’, when men collectively can no more stop rape than women collectively can stop shoplifting. Rape is carried out by a tiny minority of men, who tend to be repeat offenders. It’s long been known that about 60% of incarcerated rapists were abused as children by one or more women, but that’s another story.

Feminist narratives are designed to increase the incidence of rape, thereby creating more employment opportunities for professional feminists. The reality is that rape is a rare crime, stranger rape even more so. Feminist narratives (one in three women…) grossly exaggerate the likelihood of women being raped. They’re designed to make women disproportionately scared of men, so they hate men in general. They’re designed to make women perennially angry, much like feminists themselves.

Feminists adopt absurd double standards in this area, as in many others. If a sober woman has sex with a drunken man, is she raping him? And if not, why not? If a drunken woman has sex with a drunken man, are they raping each other simultaneously?

It was reported on today’s lunchtime news that police forces across the UK are to be given guidance that women alleging they’ve been raped should be assumed to be telling the truth, unless there’s compelling evidence they’re not. In other words, men must be presumed guilty until and unless they can prove their innocence. They’ll be  named and shamed even before their cases come to trial, while the women will enjoy anonymity. No change there, then.

Victor Zen’s videos are always worth watching, and this is no exception. Please don’t watch it if you’re offended by the occasional use of the ‘c’ word. Enjoy:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/here-be-dragons/

Four out of seven unemployed people are men, and we know unemployment is a bigger driver of suicide among men than women. Yet legislation and government initiatives are all aimed at driving women into employment – often into male-typical lines of work, bizarrely – and into working longer hours. Year after year evidence is forthcoming to show not only that many working women would prefer to be stay-at-home mothers, but that most of the others would prefer to work fewer hours, not more.

An excellent article by Steve Doughty in today’s Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549127/One-three-working-mums-want-quit-look-children.html

A few excerpts:

More than a third of working mothers would like  to give up their jobs completely and stay at home with their children, a major  Government survey has found.

The Childcare and Early Years Survey, based on  interviews with nearly 6,400 parents between November 2012 and last June, showed  that 64 per cent of mothers of children under 15 now work, up from 60 per cent  the previous year.

The research for the Department for Education  found that, far from being anxious to get out of their homes and into  employment, the great majority of mothers are only reluctant workers.

Nearly six out of ten of all working mothers  would cut down their hours to spend more time with their families if they could  afford to, it said.

More than two-thirds of those in senior and  middle management roles would spend fewer hours in the office and devote more  time to their children if they had enough money, it said.

The findings undermine the assumption long  dominant in Whitehall that most mothers want to find jobs and that state policy  should encourage them to do so.

What would help more women do what they want to do with respect to work and home life, which would also benefit their children? Transferable personal tax allowances for couples, for one thing, which we’re considering for our 2015 general election manifesto.

This Daily Mail piece from 2009 needs no commentary from us:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

Steve Moxon is the author of an important book, The Woman Racket (2008). If you haven’t already read it, we recommend you order it now:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Woman-Racket-Steve-Moxon/dp/1845401506/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391105924&sr=1-1&keywords=the+woman+racket

The world will make far more sense after you’ve read it. It’s worth the cover price just to learn the story of how those feminist icons, the Suffragettes, delayed full female emancipation. In the meantime, while you’re waiting for Amazon to deliver the book, a gem from a 2011 episode of Sunday Morning Live, seeking to answer the age-old question, ‘Should women stay at home to look after the kids?’ Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CojB_l60iY

Our thanks to D for this. The free newspaper Metro is on a roll:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/29/stay-at-home-husband-asks-high-flying-wife-for-millions-4282714/

We hope he gets the millions he deserves. The basis of his claim will be familiar to us all. From the article:

He said he sacrificed his career for her and their two children.

It’s remarkable how many women have historically been willing to ‘sacrifice’ their careers after marrying wealthy men, even when they haven’t had children. Self-sacrifice is clearly in these women’s DNA.

Is there no limit to the shamelessness of some women when seeking special treatment? It’s a rhetorical question, of course. Our thanks to M for pointing us to this story concerning a female professor using shaming tactics at Yale:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-10/yale-management-professor-alleges-age-and-gender-descrimination-in-suit#r=most

The comments stream is interesting. Two comments selected at random:

Why hire more women when women are obviously poorer performers as compared to men… something that is partly evidenced by the hysterical hate movement women depend on to enforce fascist female-supremacist entitlements.

So it’s not even that she got fired…  She’s suing because her contract expired and they didn’t give her a new contract?!?!  These lawsuits are getting ridiculous!

Interesting:

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/29/dave-lee-travis-i-was-groped-by-three-very-very-famous-women-4282873/

An interesting new piece by one of our favourite Canadian Honey Badgers:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/everydaysexism-pennyred-vicky_simister-samanthabrick-the-everyday-solipsism-project-shoutback/