Life is looking up when a 17-year-old (British) sociology student – Josh O’Brien – has the independence of mind, courage, and understanding about the MHRM to post videos like this. He was also the writer of this book. We look forward to hearing much more from Josh. In the meantime I’ve made a comment on the AVfM stream, and invite you to do likewise.

Our thanks to Pete for this. The patriarchs are to blame, of course. Not only are they forcing their women to have this surgery, presumably through such cruel acts as threatening to cut up their Harrods credit cards, but they’re also stopping their women from doing what they’d much prefer to do, e.g. become engineers, lumberjacks, car mechanics, plumbers, long-distance lorry drivers, sewage workers etc. Bad patriarchs!

Today is the start of Men’s Health Week, run by the Men’s Health Forum. This year it’s focusing on health issues relating to work, including stress and unemployment. Link to the website here.

30+ years ago the doctor and author Vernon Coleman was predicting that the policy of driving more women into medicine would prove to be a disaster as – in his experience – few female doctors had the work ethic and commitment that was expected of male doctors. How prescient he was. 70% of medical students today are women, with utterly predictable consequences.

Most of the students on engineering courses are men, and this is seen as ‘a problem to be solved’ through taxpayer interventions, such as the additional grants being given to female engineering students at Brunel University. Most of the students on medicine courses are women but this isn’t ‘a problem to be solved’, despite all the negative consequences, with long-suffering taxpayers paying ever more for an increasingly poor NHS. To the best of our knowledge The Taxpayers’ Alliance resolutely refuses to criticise government initiatives which advantage women over men, regardless of the consequences in terms of service quality or value for money.

More than 50% of GPs today are women, and the average GP earns £104,000 p.a. Compared with male doctors, female doctors are far more likely to quit the profession altogether, less likely to work unsocial hours (including weekends), less likely to choose the more stressful specialisations, more likely to work part-time regardless of family commitments, and more likely to retire early. The average woman who graduates with a medical degree will work about half the hours over her working life compared with her male counterpart, and the cost of filling the resulting capacity ‘gap’ with foreign doctors – many of whom have trained in poor countries which need them – is huge. The A&E service is in crisis partly because while 70% of newly-qualified doctors are women, very few are prepared to work in A&E.

Rarely does the mainstream media make the obvious links between the feminisation of the NHS and the appalling service it has slowly become over recent decades. What we get is a relentless stream of articles – almost always from female journalists – such as this.
To add insult to injury, the end of the piece:

Some GPs are also dismayed at their practice’s opening hours and say higher numbers of patients are going to casualty departments on afternoons when they are closed. One doctor, writing anonymously on the Pulse magazine website, said: ‘It’s about time practices were expected to be open all of core hours with GPs available.
‘In my CCG, they all shut for Thursday afternoon and have the time off, or do private work elsewhere. ‘If you call you get pushed through to the out-of-hours service. And guess what, there is a huge spike in A&E attendances on Thursday afternoon from those practices.’
Dr Maureen Baker, chairman of the Royal College of GPs said: ‘We are surprised by these findings as they do not reflect what we are hearing from our GP members who are working ever longer hours to provide care to more and more patients.’

A TV studio discussion just posted on AVfM. Dean Esmay did a great job under difficult circumstances, particularly given the initially hostile male interviewer. Keep an eye on the comments stream, too – some interesting things posted there.

Our thanks to the person who’s just left a comment on the Richard Scudamore PA story, pointing us to a piece written by a female guest blogger on ‘Clarissa’s Blog’. Clarissa is a feminist. The piece ends with a number of questions. The answers to them are a combination of women’s emotional neediness, even in the workplace – where it’s inappropriate – and gender-typical work ethic differences. Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000) explained that while four out of seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British women is.

The blog piece:

“I don’t want to hire any more women.

Yes, I said it. You cringed when you read it and I cringed when I wrote it, and even more so when the thought first occurred to me. I am a woman, a feminist, a mother, and a passionate entrepreneur. I don’t just stand for equality – I have crashed the glass ceiling in every aspect of my life. I get extremely angry when I come across articles that insist there are gender differences that extend beyond physiology. I am fortunate to have had female role models who taught me through their own examples that I can accomplish absolutely anything I desire.

Over the years, I have hired outstanding women – educated, intelligent and highly articulate. Yet, I am exhausted. I have become profoundly tired of being a therapist and a babysitter, of being drawn into passive-aggressive mental games and into constantly questioning my own worth as a manager. I have had several women who quit to stay home to “figure out what to do next”. No, not to stay home and care for children, but to mooch of a husband or a boyfriend while soul searching (aka: taking a language class or learning a new inapplicable skill that could be acquired after work). Incidentally, I have not had a single male employee quit with no plan in mind.

I have had women cry in team meetings, come to my office to ask me if I still like them and create melodrama over the side of the office their desk was being placed. I am simply incapable of verbalizing enough appreciation to female employees to satiate their need for it for at least a week’s worth of work. Here is one example to explain. My receptionist was resigning and, while in tears, she told me that although she was passionate about our brand and loved the job, she could not overcome the fact that I did not thank her for her work. It really made me stop in my tracks and so I asked for an example. “Remember when I bought the pictures with butterflies to hang in the front? And you just came and said ‘thank you’? That is a perfect example!” – “Wait”, I said, “So, I did thank you then?” – “Yes! But you did not elaborate on what exactly you liked about them! Why didn’t you?” She had bought them with the company credit card and I actually did not like them at all, but I digress.

I have developed a different approach for offering constructive criticism to male and female employees. When I have something to say to one of the men, I just say it! I don’t think it through – I simply spit it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff. I plan, I prepare, I think, I run it through my business partner and then I think again. I start with a lot of positive feedback before I feel that I have cushioned my one small negative comment sufficiently, yet it is rarely enough. We talk forever, dissect every little piece of it, and then come back to the topic time and time again in the future. And I also have to confirm that I still like them – again and again, and again.

I am also yet to have a single male employee come to my office to give me dirt on a co-worker or share an awkward gossip-like story. My female employees though? Every. single. one.

When I opened my company, I was excited for many reasons. One of them was wanting to make it an amazing place for women to build their careers. After all, we were two women, both mothers with very small children, opening a company in a very competitive industry. I was going to celebrate the achievements of my female hires, encourage them to find their voices, celebrate their pregnancies and year-long maternity leaves, be understanding and accommodating when they would have to juggle work/daycare/school schedules. Yet, I had no idea that the problems women faced in their workplace were often far removed from the typical inequalities feminism continues to address. It is not men who sabotage women and stump their career growth – it is women themselves!

What is at the root of the problem? Lack of confidence? Wrong upbringing? What am I not seeing? Is there something else I should be doing as a manager? I welcome your comments, as I secretly continue placing the resumes of female applicants into the “call later” folder.

The post was written by a guest blogger but the veracity of every aspect of the story has been verified by Blogger Clarissa.”

Earlier today we posted a piece about how the disloyal temporary PA of Richard Scudamore, the Premier League chief executive, sent some of his obviously private emails to the media… and is now seeking £150,000 compensation from the Premier League. As we often say, you couldn’t make this s*** up. The ever-insightful Herbert Purdy has just posted some comments on the piece (below), which once again are worthy of a blog piece. The man really should write a book. I might suggest the idea to him. Maybe LPS publishing could publish it. In the meantime, enjoy:

“Women like this are so steeped in what they believe is their moral obligation to root out every instance of the social ‘offence’ of sexism, something they see everywhere and in everything, and which only feminism has declared is offensive. They truly believe they are justified in this sort of behaviour, it is astonishing really.

Ms Abraham has not only lost all vestige of any claim she might have had to integrity in her work, she will undoubtedly find that her ideologically driven actions will prevent her finding employment in the future. How can she not see that trust is so easily lost, and her beliefs are no excuse for such unspeakable irresponsibility?

These women really believe they are right to put their ideology before their contractual and ethical duty. That is what feminism is doing to women, it is robbing them of their human agency and their moral fibre. What world do we now live in that women can be like this?

Ms Abraham is an adult, deemed to have agency, and she exercised that agency in what she did, so she must be accountable. Yet she seems to believe she is justified sufficiently in what she did to seek punitive damages. In other words, she wants to punish those whom she has first punished, betrayed, and damaged. She has shown no moral scruple, yet she believes she is entitled to compensation, presumably in the belief that she acted in a just cause. No she did not. Feminism’s crusade against alleged sexism is not a just cause.

Feminism has induced women to believe that they have rights to equality, and, in that endeavour, no responsibility to exercise even the most basic of human responsibilities. This woman has destroyed her own personal integrity, which is precious beyond jewels, as she will no doubt now realise.

Her chances of ever being considered worthy of getting any job in which trust, discretion and integrity are implicit have been blown to pieces – by her. She has tarred herself with the brush of being seen as a feminist subversive who will ‘out’ any boss who does not toe the line of her ideology. Now who would employ a woman like that? How duped these women are!

I think Mike Buchanan’s point is well made. It is undoubtedly getting to the stage where to be a feminist woman in a position of trust in an organisation is to be seen as a potential subversive, and, therefore, better to select a man and be safe.”

Some women’s utter shamelessness knows no bounds. One such woman is clearly Rani Abraham (41) who recently revealed some private emails of Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, to the media. Not behaviour you’re expect from a ‘personal assistant’, to say the least, and presumably in breach of her contract terms.

When I started working in the business sector in 1979, a few years after Ms Abraham was born, these women were called ‘secretaries’. Ten years later they were increasingly often called ‘personal assistants’ and were being paid more for doing less, as the advent of computers had made their workload significantly less onerous.

Piling insult upon injury, Ms Abraham is now going to sue the Premier League. A Daily Mail article on the matter. An extract:

The Premier League insists she was specifically told not to look at his private emails. In legal papers, Miss Abraham brands the Premier League an ‘institutionally sexist old boys’ club’ and the Football Association ‘not fit for purpose’. She alleges that the FA chose to ‘cover up’ the scandal when it should have charged Scudamore with bringing the game into disrepute.
Her solicitor Lawrence Davies, of law firm Equal Justice, revealed she is seeking compensation for lost earnings and hurt feelings as well as aggravated and punitive damages. Miss Abraham brands the Premier League an ‘institutionally sexist old boys’ club’.
Lawrence Davies said: ‘The compensation she is seeking is £150,000 in total – a tiny fraction of the Premier League’s £3 billion annual revenue.’ Awards of punitive damages by tribunals are virtually unheard of in this country.
Mr Davies said: ‘There is no limit to the amount a tribunal can award in damages for sex discrimination. It is only a matter of time before a UK tribunal adopts the U.S. approach to punitive damages to kill discriminatory practices that still flourish here.’

So let me get this straight. She carried out an action which was highly unethical and presumably in breach of her contract – but let’s not forget that women are generally above the law – then her solicitor seeks £150,000 compensation on the grounds that the sum is… er… ‘a tiny fraction of the Premier League’s £3 billion annual revenue.’ Oh, well, that’s all right then…

I would hope the Premier League would sue this damnable woman for breach of contract – but of course they won’t. I hope she loses her case, has to pay legal costs, never again finds employment, and fails to find a man stupid enough to maintain her. And I hope any men seeking to employ PAs in future make every effort to employ male PAs. With four out of seven unemployed people in the UK being men, many of them IT-literate, it shouldn’t prove a big challenge. Many of these men would surely be delighted to earn £40,000 for doing cushy office-based jobs.

A short but important new article from Jonathan Taylor.

Yesterday we published a final-year law degree paper by a 27-year-old American lawyer, Andrew DeLaney, concerning the double standards behind international initiatives to ban FGM, whilst doing nothing about male circumcision. In some countries, most notably the US, medical establishments actively support MGM, presumably because it’s a lucrative business.

We’ve just received some characteristically insightful comments from Herbert Purdy, and thought it was worthy of a blog piece. It takes up the rest of this piece:

“This is an astonishingly lucid and balanced discussion of the entire issue of male and female circumcision, and Andrew DeLaney should be applauded for his scholarship, balance, and sheer common sense. I urge people to read this paper. It is well written and as clear as a bell.

When one does so, one realises how even the terms that are used, female genital MUTILATION versus male CIRCUMCISION, an accurate and non-emotive term, differentiate the feminist dogma and motives gliding like a viper through the entire issue.

Given that female circumcision (I choose not to use the emotive term; I refuse to play the game) is, and always has been carried out by women, and given that it is women following their ancient customs in the society in which they live, who not only practice it, but promote it and even defend it against attempts to ban it, the undoubted anti-male, anti-patriarchy, western, feminist agenda behind the drive to ban it worldwide is exposed as yet another feminist canard.

It actually doesn’t matter whether one agrees with the principle or the practice of genital mutilation, the undoubted double standards being applied by national governments and international bodies such as the UN who are enslaved to feminism, is what should be concerning us. For what amount to absolutely equivalent procedures, carried out for the same reasons, somehow it is wrong for girls and OK for boys? I don’t think so. It needs to be considered as a whole, not a gender issue.

If feminism really was a movement concerned with equality, feminists would be working to further equality and human rights across the board. It would be taking on the entire subject, rather than slanting it only to women’s perspectives. The hypocrisy makes me heave. Is there no end to how far this rabid feminist ideology will go in furtherance of its undoubted gender-based war on men, fathers, boys? When will the world wake up to the hypocrisy and cultural hegemony of this divisive creed?”