We all know that ‘rape culture’ is a feminist invention, and like all ‘feminist theory’ has no evidence-based underpinnings. But globally feminists are driving an ever-growing false rape culture. An interesting new piece by one of our favourite Canadian Honey Badgers:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/conor-oberst-brighteyesband-fights-false-rape-culture/
An interesting piece by a London-based lawyer for The Law Society Gazette:
Good points, well made:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/m-g-t-o-w/subverting-mgtow/
A few weeks ago we sent the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) a FOI request seeking evidence to back up a recent statement by Vince Cable MP which implied a causal link between increasing female representation on boards, and enhanced financial performance. We’ve just received the response, and won’t insult your intelligence by posting it here. It basically refers to documents which show correlations between increased female representation on boards and improved financial performance, but as we’ve said countless times:
Every report and study we’ve analysed showing a correlation between increased female representation on boards and enhanced financial performance – McKinsey, Credit Suisse, Reuters Thomson, Catalyst… – has made it perfectly clear that correlation isn’t evidence of causation and can’t be taken to even imply it. There are far more credible explanations for those correlations than some nebulous ‘female factor’. The only evidence we have of a causal link is five longitudinal studies showing a link between increased female representation on boards and declines in financial performance.
We’ve asked for a meeting with one or more of three DBIS ministers – Vince Cable MP, David Willetts MP, Michael Fallon MP – to discuss the matter.
In our public consultation document we call for mandatory pre-nuptial agreements.
For many years (and to this day) men who marry have risked losing their shirts in divorce settlements. With many women now working and becoming well-off in their own right, on gender equality grounds there should be no need to change the law. From today’s Daily Mail:
From the article:
Lady Deech said on Radio 4’s Sunday Programme: ‘Lots of young women these days are working, earning well, and would feel it extremely unfair if a young man who they marry and perhaps leaves them is going to take with him a sizeable chunk of what they have worked so hard for.
Let’s try a gender switch, shall we? Why did Lady Deech (and others) not say this in years gone by?
‘Lots of young men these days are working, earning well, and would feel it extremely unfair if a young woman who they marry and perhaps leaves them is going to take with her a sizeable chunk of what they have worked so hard for.
Lady Deech’s double standard here is breathtaking. Back to the article:
‘The position of women has changed in the last 40 years and it’s time to recognise that in this country, like virtually every country in the world, two people who are getting married ought to be able, if they want, to make a contract about how their assets are to be divided if they divorce.’
So, as in so many areas of their lives, women are demanding the upside of something (the possibility of a happy marriage, with all the benefits that brings) without the downside (the possibility of a divorce and losing a lot of their wealth). Men, of course, have never enjoyed such a choice.
Some good may come of this, ironically. A pre-nup law protecting men’s fortunes will come as a bitter blow to many women, because far more women than men marry for money. Is this an example of Karma? If so, I’m all for it.
What will happen in practise, of course, is that many men will be manipulated by the women they wish to marry into not having pre-nups.
[Note added 23.2.14: We’re giving some thought to re-designing the website so as to make it easier for visitors to track down pieces of interest. A donor/supporter asked if there’s a way to speedily track down posts on a specific topic. There isn’t, other than the ‘Search’ facility, which isn’t infallible. After an exchange of emails – we always go the ‘extra mile’ for donors, you understand – we believed she was thinking of the Daily Mash piece, ‘Women Still Face Discrimination, Says Jumped-Up Cow’, and after we sent her a link to a blog piece we first published in August 2013 – content below – she confirmed it was. It’s the first link in the piece, but all the links are worth checking out. Enjoy.]
At the end of another long day fighting feminism, I find some light relief is sometimes called for. So I checked into The Daily Mash and using the site’s ‘Search’ function I tracked down some good pieces. Keying in ‘Harriet Harman’ alone led me to many, including a selection which starts with a couple of pieces from 2008. The damage which that harridan (along with other feminist MPs, and their male collaborators) inflicted on this country during the Labour administrations of 1997-2010 is almost incalculable.
David Cameron pursues Harman’s militant feminist agendas with more enthusiasm than Tony Blair or Gordon Brown ever did, to his eternal shame. By way of example, we know he’s personally involved in the government’s drive to increase female representation on major corporate boards:
Cameron’s doing this despite knowing the initiative will damage the financial viability of the business sector. I digress. Back to the light relief:
Women Still Face Discrimination, Says Jumped-Up Cow
Labour MPs To Rally Behind Unbearable, Screeching Hag
Banks To Close For One Week A Month, Says Harman
Boardrooms should be 14% Brazilian tranny
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/boardrooms-should-be-14-brazilian-tranny-201102243576
We let in too many twats, says Bryant
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/we-let-in-too-many-twats-says-bryant-2013081478601
International Women’s Day offers new chances for sex
Harman’s Husband Urged To S*** Her
Finally, a piece about Harman’s all-time most enthusiastic male collaborator:
Cameron annoys all humans
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/cameron-annoys-all-humans-2013021960258
As regular visitors will know, ‘Honey Badgers’ is a North American term for non-feminist and anti-feminist women, and it’s become a term applied to these estimable woman across the world. They include:
Erin Pizzey http://erinpizzey.com
GirlWritesWhat http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat
Janet Bloomfield http://judgybitch.com
Zara Faris http://zarafaris.com
Quiet Riot Girl http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com
Aimee Nicholls http://youtube.com/user/AimeeCNicholls
Callakenney http://callakenney.wordpress.com/
AzureBlue http://pathologicallyunpc.wordpress.com
Female Fed Up With Feminism http://femalefedupwithfeminism.wordpress.com
Emma the Emo http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com
Darling Doll http://darlingdoll82.wordpress.com/
… and many more.
About a year ago I was explaining about Honey Badgers to a young, beautiful, intelligent relative of the female persuasion, when she laughed and asked if I wanted to see a YouTube video about the animals. I said I would, and here it is. It’s been viewed by over 65 million people, more people than live in the UK. I haven’t checked our stats recently, but I believe that might be more people than have ever watched a J4MB video. Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
I sent the link to a man who runs an influential MHR website, and he replied that this particular video was the original inspiration for terming non-feminist and anti-feminist women ‘Honey Badgers’.
I’ve just read an article online which attracted the following comment. It takes up the rest of this piece:
It’s time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on women, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
“Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the air,” Hyphenated-Lastname says. “This cutting-edge research indicates that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these artefacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held most high offices of power and controlled the television remote.”
“But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent that, too.”
“Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere of the patriarchy’s efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women’s cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete, leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight.”
“Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail.”
“Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates. Obviously, more women are feeling ‘down.’ Gravity is just another way in which women’s health is being shortchanged.”
“This oppression is historical, the product of white, western men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, and gravity would have been supportive. Instead, we are shackled with the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men. Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with ‘opposing’ reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been equal.”
“We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would have us believe that gravity really represents the ‘natural’ order of things,” says Hyphenated-Lastname. “It will require spending money on programs to elevate girls’ self-esteem so that they are not held down by artificial concepts of patriarchy.”
“This will cost a lot of money,” says Hyphenated-Lastname.
“But I’m up for that.”
An excellent piece by Claire Ellicott in yesterday’s Daily Mail (link below). It’s a shocking story of mismanagement and the scandalous use of £180,000 of an animal charity’s funds on six ‘gagging orders’. Kim Hamilton was the chief executive of Blue Cross between 2008 and last month, when she resigned. She was on a salary of £120,000 p.a.
From the article:
In 2012 Miss Hamilton, a 53-year-old former City trader, started a relationship with Melanie Brown, 27, an administrative assistant at the charity’s HQ in Burford, Oxfordshire. Six months later, bisexual Miss Brown ended the relationship and started seeing the charity’s head of fundraising, Mike Crossley, 52. He was later sacked from his £80,000-a-year job and was paid £60,000 to sign a gagging clause to stop him discussing the reasons.
A source said at the time: ‘Kim told Mike he was in a relationship with a vulnerable person at work, and that it was inappropriate so he had to go. His departure was a direct result of his relationship with Mel. It was an entirely personal thing. But how could it be inappropriate if Kim had also had a relationship with Mel?’
Later in the article:
The situation prompted Blue Cross employees and volunteers to write to the board of directors to warn that the charity had ‘lost its way’. In their email they said they were writing anonymously because otherwise they feared dismissal due to the ‘culture of mistrust, blame and fear’ at the charity.
They wrote: ‘We feel compelled to write to you out of deep concern for the charity, given the damage that has been done since Kim Hamilton took over as CEO in 2008. It feels as if Kim Hamilton brought the morally corrupt ethics of the banking sector with her when she joined Blue Cross.
What is most concerning to us is that the charity has lost its way – rather than putting animal welfare first, resources are wasted on ever increasing salaries and head office refurbishments.’…
Zair Berry, chairman of Blue Cross, said that any decision to ask staff to leave under a confidential compromise agreement ‘is not taken lightly and only considered when it is in the best interests of Blue Cross. As a charity, we do everything we can to ensure that Blue Cross funds are focused on helping pets.’
The patron of the charity is the Duke of Westminster, and eight of the nine trustees (including Zair Berry) are men:
http://www.bluecross.org.uk/97847/our-trustees.html
Why did they allow this mismanagement to continue for the time it did, and why did they think spending £180,000 on gagging orders was an appropriate response to the situation? This story will surely have an impact on donations to the charity.
An interesting new piece:
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2014/02/are-men-really-becoming-more-feminine/
Justice for Men & Boys 