Some great news. We were made aware very recently that a Hilton hotel in Detroit which was to host the forthcoming conference, was no longer to be available. Paul Elam and his colleagues have moved with characteristic swiftness and decisiveness, and the new venue will (appropriately) be a ‘Veteran of Foreign Wars’ facility near Detroit. It will accommodate more people than the Hilton was able to, so this is a very welcome development, and we thank hate-driven feminists (and their male poodles) for this PR gift. Paul’s article on the matter is here.
Month: June 2014
Our public challenge of David Futrelle
[Note added 11 hours after this public challenge was made: David Futrelle hasn’t accepted our challenge, but he’s just posted his own public challenge to me:
David Futrelle is an American feminist who seems to be making a career out of attacking MHR websites and individual MHRAs. He recently wrote a blog piece in which he included me among a number of ‘misogynists’ (yawn) and yesterday we had an email exchange. In one of his emails he asked me to suggest a blog piece which had been taken by some people as misogynistic, with a view to him reviewing it, and then writing about it on his own blog.
I suggested the topic of increasing gender diversity in the boardroom (GDITB) about which our associated organisation Campaign for Merit has been campaigning for over two years, because of the evidence that GDITB results in declines in corporate financial performance (links to that evidence in my email exchange with David Futrelle). Feminists consider C4MB providing evidence about the impact of ‘more women on boards’ to be misogynistic. Some have even said declines in financial performance are a price worth paying to advance women who couldn’t hope to attain board positions on the basis of their experience and expertise.
I haven’t heard back from David Futrelle, so we now publicly challenge him to write a blog piece on the topic of GDITB. We’ll supply him with any materials he requires, and answer questions from both him and the commenters on the blog.
Social engineering programme at Jaguar Land Rover
Some years ago I owned a Jaguar, and I imagine the vast majority of buyers of Jaguars and Land Rovers are men. They should be aware that when they buy one of these cars, they’ll be financing a social engineering programme at Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which is making £3,000 sponsorships available to women only. The women they’re looking for don’t need to be studying engineering, or have the slightest interest in cars or car manufacturing.
It’s known the vast majority of female engineers who have children leave the profession, never to return. The JLR website states that almost half of female engineering students don’t take up careers in engineering or technology-related careers. The conclusion the government and companies like JLR draw is the obvious one:
We need more female engineers regardless of the cost to taxpayers, to the company, or to men who’ll be denied careers in engineering, although unemployment is a major driver of male suicide, and suicide is the #1 cause of death of young men.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
An email exchange with David Futrelle, and our suggestion of a topic for a new blog post from him
David Futrelle had some comments to make about our linking to the story of LEGO’s plans for a new range of miniature folk, ‘female scientists’. He linked to our blog piece in his own piece, with a title stating that along with the other thought criminals, I’m a misogynist (yawn). We’re sure the LEGO range will be a bestseller.
This morning I emailed David Futrelle, and he responded with an intriguing request. This is our exchange so far:
David, good morning. Thanks again for pointing your site’s visitors to our piece about the LEGO ‘female scientists’ story. The piece – and the blog more generally – has received hundreds more ‘hits’ as a result, a phenomenon which I believe is familiar to AVfM, and presumably other MHRA sites and individual MHRAs. We’ve had an unprecedented number of new people subscribing to the J4MB blog, and a number emailed me with supportive messages.
We run five websites (links below), please let me know if I can help direct you to materials on any particular topic. Misogyny seems to be your big ‘thing’ – though of course it’s invariably a projection in the minds of people driven my misandry – so I thought you might be interested in a recent blog piece, accessible through the following link. It includes a perceptive piece from a supporter, Paul Inman, on how feminists have made the word ‘misogyny’ utterly meaningless:
https://j4mbdotorgdotuk.wordpress.com/misogyny
Have a nice day.
Best wishes,
Mike Buchanan…
His response:
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 03:08:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Thank you.
From: dfutrelle@gmail.com
To: mb1957@hotmail.co.uk
Hundreds? My stats say I sent you less than a hundred, most of whom probably laughed at you and left. But thanks for providing me material for a post that’s gotten several thousand hits. Feel free to link me to posts of yours that have been unfairly labeled as misogynistic so I can give them a look-see, and thus a little bit more traffic.
My response:
Thanks David. My stats say 85 so far directly from your blog piece, so I guess people must have communicated with others, pointing them to the J4MB site? Big spike in ‘hits’ coming from our Facebook and Twitter accounts, as well as from sources I can’t identify. I don’t have much time to spend on this matter – I’m busy working on my speech for the Detroit conference – but including direct and indirect ‘hits’ I’d hazard a guess that J4MB traffic has increased by maybe 350+ hits over its average running level in the space of a few hours.
‘Posts that have unfairly been labelled misogynistic’? Well, that would be ALL of them which have been labelled thus. But let me pick one specific topic. It’s to do with increasing gender diversity in the boardroom, henceforth ‘GDITB’.
Feminists have thought it misogynistic for an organisation I launched in 2012 and have run since – Campaign for Merit in Business http://c4mb.wordpress.com – to keep pointing to evidence showing that GDITB leads to declines in corporate financial performance. Our short briefing paper with the Abstracts of five longitudinal studies showing the impacts of GDITB:
I’ve presented this evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries, the following is the video of my House of Commons appearance in 2012:
The government continues to bully FTSE100 companies into achieving 25% female representation on their boards by 2015, through the threat of legislated gender quotas. We know from recent reports that the government is planning to threaten the FTSE350 with 50% gender quotas. Because when you’re paddling downstream in a canoe on the Niagara river, and you start to hear the roar of the waterfalls, you should paddle faster towards them, right?
Good luck with trying to find evidence of a causal link between GDITB and enhanced financial performance – the oft-cited ‘business case’. We’ve challenged the government, dozens of organisations pressing for this ‘direction of travel’, and hundreds of individual proponents across the developed world – many of them employed in lucrative jobs allied to this insane policy direction – to provide evidence of a causal link. None has ever done so. The best they can do is misrepresent a number of studies and reports, all of which make it perfectly that there’s no evidence of causal links, nor can causal links even be implied from the statistics. The following link will take you to a few of the prominent / influential proponents of GDITB who’ve failed to meet our public challenges. They include Vince Cable MP. who leads the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills:
I look forward to your blog piece on this. I shall, of course, be happy to respond to any questions that are asked by yourself or your blog followers, so long as they’re substantive and not ideological in origin e.g. trotting out the baseless ‘glass ceiling’ conspiracy theory, which inspired my book The Glass Ceiling Delusion: the real reasons more women don’t reach senior positions. I’ll now post a new blog piece, with the contents of this email exchange.
Have a nice day.
Best wishes,
Mike Buchanan…
David Futrelle comments on our piece about LEGO ‘female scientists’ miniature figures
David Futrelle – an American, I think, though I’m not sure – seeks to make a living out of attacking individual MHRAs and sites such as AVfM. For all I know, he succeeds in his bizarre mission in life, opposing those who advocate for the human rights of men and boys. I honestly have much better things to do with my time than find out anything about him. Sorting my books into alphabetical order, by author, comes to mind.
AVfM regards Futrelle as one of the key people driving traffic to their site, so I was delighted to discover he’s attacked the blog piece on the LEGO ‘female scientists’ story we ran two or three days ago. It’s #3 in a blog piece he posted today, the title of which confers on me the honorary status – imaginatively – of ‘misogynist’:
I’ve just commented as follows, and it’s passed ‘moderation’:
David, good evening. I hope this finds you well. Thank you for driving traffic to my main site.
Maybe LEGO should inspire young wannabe female scientists with a range of modern era ‘famous’ scientists rather than ‘female’ scientists? Hmm, how might that work out? How many famous female scientists in the modern era can YOU name, following quite a few decades of equal opportunity? Yeah, I got the same number. Zippo. Nada. Squat.
So desperate are the social engineers to deny gender-typical career preferences, that Brunel University is offering 40 potential postgraduate engineering students over £20,000 pa additional grants. Which potential students? Those with vaginas, of course:
Why is it only a problem when professions are male-dominated, never a problem if they’re female-dominated?
Who pays for all these social engineering initiatives? Men, in the main. 72% of the income tax raised in the UK is paid by men, and it’s known the vast majority of female engineers who have children don’t subsequently return to the profession. So, David, do you think the Brunel initiative is a good use of taxpayers’ money? Come on, you know the answer to this question. It’s not rocket science…
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
(and the women whom love them)
Herbert Purdy’s comments on Alison Saunders’s feminist campaign to influence juries to increase the number of men convicted for rape
Our thanks to Herbert as always. He comments in response to a piece we posted earlier today, concerning recent comments made by Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecution, and the Met Commissioner:
“Alison Saunders’ announcement last week was probably one of the most dangerous and far-reaching acts of misuse of power imaginable by an officer of the state prosecution apparatus. The stench of feminism is all over this.
What is really going on here is the rolling-out of the latest feminist party line on rape, driven by Alison Saunders (and indeed, her predecessor, Keir Starmer – currently advising the Labour Party about this, and soon to be a Labour MP, it seems – quelle surprise!) of overcoming the so-called ‘Rape Myths’ that juries allegedly hold, and which, allegedly, cause them not to weigh the evidence before them in a balanced way.
In simple terms, these alleged myths fall into three categories: ‘Real Rape’ is where a woman violently resists a man who takes her by force, otherwise it is questionable; that ‘Women Cry Rape’ when they regret a sexual encounter or are caught out being unfaithful and claim rape as their excuse; and that ‘Coffee is consent’ when a woman who invites a man in for coffee after a night out is signalling her willingness to have sex. Feminists, in their ideologically-driven world, deny that these are allowable ideas, and Saunders and her like are engaged in a naked attempt to condition public opinion to this feminist narrative.
Whether you believe the so-called rape myths or not. Whether you believe they even exist, has nothing to do with it. Saunders and her ilk are intent on disabusing those who would be jurors of these alleged myths because THEY believe they are wrong and THEY believe people should not think as the do. Theirs is the purest form of feminist totalitarian elitism there is. Baruch Spinosa’s assertion that a man should be able to think what he likes, and say what he thinks has no place in their world.
However, there is a Home Office study, which points out that one of the biggest risk factors now for women who are assaulted is going to a nightclub once a week, and everybody really knows that what you do, and the situations in which you put yourself, undoubtedly increase your vulnerability to certain types of crime. The man and woman in the street (and in the jury room) knows this.
He or she also knows that if you get yourself drunk you are far more likely to have accidents, and you put yourself at increased risk because your judgement is impaired and you can’t see danger as well as you can when you are sober. Ordinary men and women who become jurors instinctively realise that if you fall off a bar stool and hit your head and have a serious brain injury because you are drunk, you chose to get drunk. They know this because they may have even done something similar themselves and have kicked themselves afterwards for being so stupid.
Judges factor these sort of things into their awards for damages. It is called contributory negligence but feminists deny that women can be contributorily negligent. For them, the woman is eternally the victim. She possesses no moral agency, and no responsibility for her own self-protection and safety. All that has to lie with the man, especially in sexual encounters.
But this is too sanitary an argument. Apart from the fact that women are often as sexually predatory as men, the ordinary man and woman knows that you cannot separate legal responsibility from moral responsibility, especially moral responsibility for one’s own wellbeing and safety, but that is what feminists like Saunders do.
Saunders is part of a campaign that is wilfully seeking to influence what goes on behind the doors of the jury room by changing public opinion about this on the basis of utterly simplistic, feminist-driven arguments. It’s as simple as that. She is seeking to extend her influence beyond the locked door of the jury room in order to get conviction rates up. This has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with dogma, ideology, and the numbers game. (Perhaps she has longer term aspirations to be a darling of the left in politics? The proof of that pudding might yet to be in the eating.)
Saunders is seeking to desecrate the jury room, which must be kept sacrosanct. Trial by one’s peers who reflect the views and mores of the common man, in the context of the times in which they and the accused live, isn’t a perfect system – far from it, but it is the best we’ve got. It has been the defence of the common man against abuse of power since Henry II created it in the twelfth century, and no holder of high office in our land today should even dare to interfere with it. Yet Saunders is doing just that.
The jury in a rape trial is a man’s last defence against the witch hunt in which the authorities are undoubtedly engaged – let’s face it and say it out loud – against men. Interfering with the jury is all part of the current rape culture whipped up by feminist ideologues intent on to de-stabilising society by creating a toxic climate of fear in women, so as to belittle men, and bring them under feminist control. And all because of their blind and unwavering belief that patriarchy has allegedly disadvantaged women for centuries. (it is all nonsense of course, but a lie told often enough becomes the truth.)
The head of the Crown Prosecution Service in a civilised nation like Britain, a bastion of freedom against tyranny and totalitarianism, must be – and must be seen to be, utterly impartial in the exercise of this vitally important role. But no. Alison Saunders is politicised. She is campaigning to end alleged rape myths by seeking to influence juries (and police officers too, it seems from Sir Bernard Hogan Howe’s utterances) and, therefore, she cannot be impartial. This should scare all of us.
I’m not saying that Sir Bernard Hogan Howe is part of the feminist cadre who are driving this agenda. He may, of course, just be playing a longer game, saying the right words, keeping his job (because he’d soon lose it if he spoke out against this) whilst maintaining a more even-handed approach in practice. I’d like to think so. I’d like to think that he remembers the oath he himself would have taken on first becoming a constable: to exercise his duty ‘without fear or favour’. We’ll see.
For me, the jury’s out on him.”
Julie Borowski: ‘Check your privilege’ is an idiotic phrase
The latest gem from Julie Borowski.
Harriet Wells’s petition: ‘Remove the Anti-Homeless Spikes’
90%+ of homeless people living ‘on the street’ across the UK are men. Harriet Wells is a wonderful London-based mental health nurse who’s rightfully concerned about a cruel development in London. Please join me in signing her commendable petition. Thank you.
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, will follow feminists’ guidance on how to deal with sexual offence cases
[Note added 13.6.14: This article has just been published by A Voice for Men – here. The comments sections on AVfM are always worth reading.]
There are few things that make us more incensed than when senior men in public life follow the lead of feminist ideologues such as the man-hating Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is often referred to as the country’s most senior police officer, responsible for law and order in a city with over seven million inhabitants. This piece on the BBC website really brought the red mist down. An early extract:
Officers are not always “sensitive and empathetic to the rape victim’s account”, Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has said. At the launch of an independent review of the investigation of rape, Sir Bernard said the force needed to “drastically improve” how it handled rape cases. More than 80% of sexual offences victims do not come forward, he added. The review, part of a national action plan, will be led by ex-Lord Advocate of Scotland Dame Elish Angiolini. The outcome will be published in February.
How can anyone know how many sexual offences victims don’t come forward? Surely a ridiculous ‘factoid’ invented by feminists, which he’s swallowed hook, line, and sinker. The article continues:
Sir Bernard said: “For a while, I’ve been concerned about how we, the police, approach and deal with sexual offences. “This is our brave attempt to try to resolve it,” he added.
He said people did not seem to “trust the criminal justice system to give them the assistance they need” and about 80% of those who come forward to report were “vulnerable” through drink, drugs or psychiatric illness. “My concern has been whether or not the investigators are always as sensitive and empathetic to the victim’s account, as they should be.”
‘People’ did not seem to ‘trust the justice system’. In this context we can safely replace ‘people’ with ‘women’. 80% of the ‘people’ coming forward were ‘vulnerable’. What proportion of this 80% had ingested alcohol or drugs voluntarily? What proportion of them had consensual sex, but later regretted it, turning a consensual act into a criminal offence? If a woman who’s not ‘vulnerable’ through drink or drugs has consensual sex with a man who is, and the man later regrets his decision, are we to say she raped him? Surely either, or neither, must be true. Later in the article:
Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, said: “We have seen an increase in the last few months of referrals coming through, but we need to improve the court process once the victim has decided to engage.”
Ms Saunders said she would be in favour of judges warning jurors about the dangers of them having an unconscious bias at the start of a trial rather than at the end.
Ah, that useful feminist trump card, ‘unconscious bias’. By definition, you can’t deny you have it. So as a juror you’re supposed to set aside all you’ve learned in your life, and all you’ve learned from others, about how men and women in the real world interact with each other, and fill the void with feminist narratives designed to ensure conviction rates are increased. It’s a cynical corruption of the jury system, and if all this has anything to do with justice, I’m a Koi carp.
The Carnage pub crawl girls who attacked a homeless man after telling him to ‘get a f****** job’: Shocking footage from the streets
Our thanks to Tracey for alerting us to this piece. She writes:
Now unless I’ve been asleep too long, why the f*** is such a story not front page news in Great Britain? Why isn’t this story seen for what it is? If a bunch of drunk blokes attacked a homeless woman and tried to ‘rip her clothes off’ there would be a ‘national outcry’ wouldn’t there, Mike?
The BBC would have it as a prominent news item, tabloids would have it on their front pages, and feminists would call this a clear indictment of the “patriarchal society” and its treatment towards women, but because it’s just some “male” it’s treated as some lowbrow unimportant episode that one has to look hard to even notice… terrible terrible terrible.
One of the commenters on the piece, ‘chrisyinthenews’, a Londoner, displaying woman’s inhumanity to man, wrote:
Can someone call social and get this homeless (probably lives around the corner driving a BMW) off the streets, why do we allow there to be street beggars in this day and age?
Presumably she imagines the 90% of homeless people who are men all live around the corner and drive BMWs. She asks, ‘Why do we allow there to be street beggars in this day and age?’ On some council estates in the UK today, 75% of children are being brought up by single mothers. 24% of children have no contact with their biological fathers. How could these stark realities NOT impact adversely and significantly on the availability of social housing for desperate homeless people, both men and women?
Justice for Men & Boys 