A short (5:22) but insightful video. Don’t watch it if you’re offended by the ‘c’ word.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/bane666aus-dont-be-that-campaign/

In our public consultation document we have proposals related to two forms of paternity fraud:

Where a woman leads a man to believe he’s the biological father of her child, when he’s not.

Where a woman frustrates a contraceptive method in order to become pregnant, e.g. not taking contraceptive pills, whilst telling her partner she is.

Both forms of paternity fraud are outrageous assaults on men’s interests. The first form – even when attempted unsuccessfully – has long been a criminal offence in the UK. Not one woman has ever been convicted of the crime in the UK.

Earlier today both Ray and I spoke about paternity fraud on BBC Radio WM (West Midlands). We were interviewed by Danny Kelly, standing in for Adrian Goldberg. Ray spoke earlier in the programme and didn’t have the opportunity to mention J4MB and our proposals with respect to paternity fraud, so I called into the programme and spoke later. A link to the full programme is below. It will be available for seven days, we hope to have an edited version available on our YouTube channel shortly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qqfjw

The following sections might be of interest, they were interspersed with a small number of contributions from listeners calling into the programme:

2:58 – 4:28 – Danny’s introduction to the topic of maternity fraud.

49:24 – 54:42 – Ray Barry.

54:43 – 57:20 – Dr Nicola McCrystal, Head of DNA at Bioclinics. She managed to say, ‘In many cases women assign paternity incorrectly’ without laughing. The remark certainly made me laugh.

2:04:29 – 2:07:08 – myself. After I’d spoken about the second form of paternity fraud – women frustrating contraceptive methods – Danny Kelly made a remark of a type I’ve encountered before from male BBC radio interviewers:

‘Mike, something in your past must have driven you to this. What happened?’

Ray Barry and I spoke after the programme, and he made an interesting observation. Narratives on BBC radio programmes of this sort always focus on feelings rather than facts. Interviewers – both male and female – seem unable (or possibly unwilling?) to engage with rational arguments about assaults on men’s human rights.

[Note: the material in this blog piece was later published on 23.2.14 by ‘A Voice for Men’:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/malefemale-suicide-rate-differential-increases-again/ ]

In 2011 the male/female suicide rate differential was 3.0. In 2012 it was 3.5, the highest differential in more than 30 years:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/18/male-suicides-three-times-women-samaritans-bristol

From the article:

There were 4,590 male suicides registered in 2012, compared with 1,391 female, equating to 18.2 per 100,000 men and 5.2 per 100,000 women, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

When the data series began, in 1981, the male suicide rate was 1.9 times that for women. But the rate for women halved, with a much smaller decrease (from 19.8 in 1981) for men.

So in the space of 31 years, the male/female suicide differential rate has almost doubled, from 1.9 to 3.5. If that isn’t an indicator of society becoming differentially more hostile towards men over that period, I don’t know what is. From the article:

Clare Wyllie, head of policy and research at Samaritans, said the figures showed that the highest suicide rate was among men aged 40 to 44, at 25.9 deaths per 100,000. This bore out the charity’s own studies, which have found middle-aged men of low socioeconomic status to be most at risk. “They will grow up expecting by the time they reach mid-life they’ll have a wife who will look after them and a job for life in a male industry,” she said. “In reality they may find that they reach middle age in a very different position. Society has this masculine ideal that people are expecting to live up to. Lots of that has to do with being a breadwinner. When men don’t live up to that it can be quite devastating for them.”

Let’s reflect on the last line:

When men don’t live up to that it can be quite devastating for them.

Whilst the statement is objectively true, we need to ask why men increasingly ‘don’t live up to that’. Men – and particularly low-status men – have been assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions for 30+ years with respect to many areas, including:

1. Four out of seven unemployment people are men. Unemployment is a larger driver of male suicide than female suicide. Male unemployment has been increased by mass immigration, which has also depressed wages for unskilled workers. Where state initiatives aimed at driving up employment have a gender dimension, they always favour the employment of women over men.

2. State support of single mothers means that women no longer have to rely on men as partners – their reliance on men as taxpayers is, of course, enormous. So men keep paying the bills, but fewer men have the opportunities of being in a nuclear family.

3. Denial of access to children following relationship breakdowns. Low status men have no prospect of raising the large sums of money required for legal support over the long term.

How can such factors not be driving up the male suicide rate? Suicide is the leading cause of death of young men – driven in part by their education failures in a highly feminised education system.

From the article:

Paul Bristow, from the Mental Health Foundation, said: “We urgently need to know more about why being male is itself a risk factor in suicide and to do more to help men, especially young men, seek assistance rather than suffer in silence.” The study conducted by the University of Bristol and the Samaritans has funding from the Department of Health policy research programme.

You can be sure that no taxpayer-funded studies will point to an obvious conclusion, namely that the increasing male/female suicide rate differential is in large part a predictable consequence of a society which is ever more hostile towards men, and ever more supportive of women.

A piece on BBC online:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26259644

Historically academics have advanced through the excellence of their research work. That’s no longer good enough. We need to make it ‘easier for women to advance’, apparently; given the limited number of senior paces – financed by long-suffering taxpayers – this would equate in practise to making it ‘harder for men to advance’, needless to say. From the article:

“A broader, more inclusive approach to success and promotion, where other academic contributions, including teaching, administration and outreach work are valued, would make it easier for women to advance,” the academics argue.

Professor Athene Donald, gender equality champion at the university, says: “Our experience at Cambridge, where we have recently surveyed 126 female academics and administrators on this subject, suggests that this is indeed the case.

“Women seem to value a broader spectrum of work-based competencies that do not flourish easily under the current system,” she said.

Women appear to have no shame when it comes to self-advancement. Nonetheless, I shall be emailing Professor Donald amd3@cam.ac.uk to point her to this piece, and saying she and her female colleagues should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Her ‘Equality and Diversity Activities’ are here:

http://www.bss.phy.cam.ac.uk/~amd3/E+D.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2563093/Working-mothers-suffer-DOUBLE-guilt-worry-poor-parent-poor-employee.html

An inevitable occasional consequence of abortion on demand, which we’ve effectively had in the UK since the 1967 Abortion Act:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2563307/The-women-abortions-robbed-chance-motherhood.html

An excellent new piece by James Williams for his Men’s Matters Radio. Click on the line in red font’ ‘This episode of Men’s Matters Radio’ to access his excellent audio file.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/just-plain-crazy/farcical-differences-in-the-training-of-male-and-female-army-cadets/

Antonia Hoyle is a highly-regarded national newspaper and magazine freelance journalist, and we’ve just had a chat. She’s writing a piece for a national newspaper, and is seeking some input. Do you know of any men who are married to wives who are breadwinners, and say it’s led to arguments in their relationships? Perhaps she makes him feel bad, he feels emasculated etc.? It’s following a report that said marriages in which the woman is the breadwinner are the happiest, and she’s questioning if that is the case. Both husband and wife would need to be pictured and speak to Antonia (unless they’ve since separated). She’d be happy to read back quotes to them, and can pay a £400 fee upon publication.

Antonia’s website is here http://antoniahoyle.com and she invites people to email her at antonia@antoniahoyle.com. Good luck, and if you’re successful, don’t forget to make a modest donation to J4MB!

The good people at AVfM have just published the following:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/j4mb-challenges-vera-baird-qc-and-professor-susan-vinnicombe/

Some of this material has already been on the J4MB blog before. I invite you to contribute to the comment stream, which is always worth catching on AVfM.

Will there never be an end to the relentless feminisation and risk-avoidance in our society? Some of the worst manifestations are in our schools, largely run by female teachers along female lines. Characteristics typical of boys, such a boisterousness, have been pathologised and ‘remedied’ with psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin. It’s a national scandal. Now we have a female professor calling for an end to tackling and scrums in rugby played in schools. Why doesn’t she call for an end to contact sports altogether, and replace them with hobbies such as basket-weaving and knitting? Give me strength.

A short extract from her Sky interview is available through this link:

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12325/9172514/will-greenwood-reacts-to-the-suggestion-that-rugby-rules-need-to-be-changed