I have no comments to make on this disgusting woman.

An interesting new article from Lucian Valsan.

An interesting new piece.

This piece is about a spectacularly narcissistic young feminist, Lissie Seattle – possibly a pseudonym – who attempted to gain entry to the Detroit conference. She’d previously posted a fundraiser to finance her travel to the event, and associate costs, and – hardly surprisingly – she wasn’t admitted into the event. To be fair it probably came as a surprise to her given that in common with all feminists she isn’t the sharpest knife in the block. She’d sought a free ‘press ticket’ at one point, I believe. You couldn’t make it up.

Her fundraiser video (and other short video pieces) are available to watch through this link. I’m no psychologist, but I recall thinking when I first saw the pieces that she’s a clear example of someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A good lady friend who’s a psychologist confirmed my suspicion without reservation. Ms Seattle’s account of the time she spent with conference speakers and delegates is here.

The first photograph is of Ms Seattle and her baby, the latter with an expression you’d expect a baby with a mother like Cupcake to have (Cupcake was the term used by Robert Carnell in his ‘must see’ conference talk about paternity fraud. We might use it in future for Entitlement Princesses such as the self-obsessed Ms Seattle.) The last two photographs in her piece are of:

– Alison Tieman (TyphonBlue) and Sage Gerard (Victor Zen)
– a friendly and perfectly innocuous American gentleman with a camera, also Attila Vinczer of AVfM, myself, and the litre bottle of duty-free Johnny Walker Red Label I was sharing with maybe 6-8 people, the bar having closed for the night.

I didn’t see Cupcake in Malone’s, the large restaurant / bar where we had our dinner, although a very charming young lady did join us, who I hope doesn’t turn out to be another feminist on a futile mission to find something of substance to criticise MHRAs about (if she was, she was out of luck, needless to say).

After our meal we repaired to our hotel. Cupcake arrived late in the evening, and her presence didn’t registered with me until she was standing up and someone was pointing out who she was – I didn’t recognise her from her fundraising video – and she was duly ejected in a civilised manner from the hotel. Her narcissism is all too clear from her description of the photographs taken by the ‘older gentleman’. Ask yourself, would a man – with the dubious motivation she implies – have shown her images of her legs, breasts, and midriff, which she says he’d taken on his digital camera? Like everything else about her narratives, the idea is laughable. Needless to say, her story was picked up by Dave Futile, who pretended to take it seriously. Or maybe he’s so stupid he actually believed her impressions were a reflection of reality. On balance, the latter is surely more credible.

[Note added 2.7.14: I’m pleased to say Ruth Sunderland has asked for materials supporting our position, and I’ve just emailed some to her.]

Ruth Sunderland is a business journalist with the Daily Mail, one of many journalists who relentlessly peddle the idea that having more women on boards is ‘a good thing’ and refuse to engage with the evidence which shows that driving up female representation on boards leads to corporate financial decline, a matter covered exhaustively by Campaign for Merit in Business. Their briefing paper with the Abstracts of five longitudinal studies is here.
I’ve posted and commented on one or two of Ms Sunderland’s articles before. My thanks to Jeff for pointing me to her recent article on Glencore’s appointment of its first female director. It contains a gem of a sentence, and I’ll comment on its two constituent parts:

There is no hard evidence that having women on the board causes better performance…

Almost correct. If you remove the word ‘hard’ these words are true, but still misleading. As the briefing paper from Campaign for Merit in Business shows, placing more women on boards leads to declines in corporate financial performance. Onto the second part of the sentence:

…but there is a strong correlation.

Ms Sunderland is clearly leading us to believe this correlation is of significance in supporting the promotion of more women onto boards. In all the reports we’ve analysed – including those from the feminist campaign group Catalyst, to which Ms Sunderland refers – it’s made crystal clear that correlation isn’t evidence of causation, and can’t even be taken to imply it.

I think we could agree there’s a correlation between how much wealth men have (or are expected to have one day) and the attractiveness of the women they marry – but we don’t say that attractive women make men wealthier, do we?

Yesterday I called the Daily Mail and left a message on Ms Sunderland’s answerphone, explain I head up J4MB and C4MB, and outlined why I’d appreciate a phone discussion. Not having heard from her, I left a second message this morning. She called back about half an hour ago, but unfortunately I didn’t have my mobile with me at the time. She left the following message:

I very much doubt whether either I will convince you or you will convince me (laughs). This is not a subject I’ve just hit upon and not given any thought to. I’ve done a lot of reading, a lot of discussion, and a lot of thinking about it, and I very much doubt given the organisation you come from (laughs) and the fact you seem to think women perform worse than men, we would really move the situation much further on, so personally I think we would be better off just to agree to differ.

I called back and left another message on her answerphone, explaining this isn’t an issue on which we could ‘agree to differ’, because the evidence base shows her convictions to be demonstrably false. I asked for her email address to present that evidence. I’ll update this blog piece if she responds.

Feminists believe in ‘patriarchy theory’. In their twisted interpretation of the term, men as a class have always oppressed women as a class, and continue to do so. The indicators that this analysis is absurd are too numerous to count, but one interesting indicator is how male-dominated legislatures and judiciaries continue to decide divorce settlements for wives, some decades after women have had every employment opportunity men have. You might reasonably ask, ‘Why are ex-wives STILL entitled to fleece ex-husbands?’ In our public consultation document we seek an end to divorce as a route to personal enrichment.

If we lived in a patriarchy, these women would fare badly. Back in the real world, divorce remains a route to personal financial enrichment for wives, including adulterous wives, which brings us naturally to Pamela, Marchioness of Northampton (62), a woman who first married at the age of 18, and has so far had a 44-year-long career of fleecing rich men. Her story – and that of the four unfortunate men whose paths she has crossed – is told here.

The whole article is worth reading, but for those of you pressed for time, some key excerpts should suffice to give you the ‘meat and potatoes’ of her story. There’s no hint in the full-page story that the woman has ever had even a day’s paid employment in her life. In the final years of her 20-year-long marriage to Lord Northampton, she had an affair with one of his friends – a very rich man, what are the chances? – Dr Dan Stoicescu:

The 6ft 4in Marquess – Spenny to his friends – had to fight hard to restrict his own divorce settlement to £17 million, and that was despite her beginning an affair with one of his friends. She and the Marquess had been married for nearly 20 years. ‘She got £850,000 for each year of their marriage,’ snaps one of his close chums.’…

She wed a Scots businessman when she was 18, and then a wealthy Greek-American shipping financier when she was 31. When that marriage ended in the late Eighties, her property interests began. She was left with the £2 million marital apartment near the Royal Albert Hall in Kensington, which today would be worth in the region of £20 million…

But just as he was being named in court as Lady Northampton’s lover, Dr Stoicescu, 62, was embarking on another affair behind her back. By late 2012 he was married to Maria Torres, 50, from Santa Domingo in the Dominican Republic…

In her affidavit, Pamela is not only claiming the ownership of the Rancho Santa Fe house and its contents should be transferred to her, but is also claiming $10 million (£6 million) ‘special damages’, representing the value of other property that was allegedly promised but not paid.

She is also seeking general damages of $25,000 (£14,600) for her ‘severe emotional distress… anxiety, sleeplessness, depression and humiliation’….

The papers also disclose how Stoicescu had promised to keep her in the style to which she had become accustomed, including £30,000 a month to cover her ‘personal girlish stuff’…

Lord Northampton, a mere spectator to this domestic wrangling, is reluctant to say much, but told us: ‘It doesn’t surprise me that this is going on.’

His friends are less restrained. ‘Pamela is one of the most diabolical bitches I have had the misfortune of knowing,’ says one.

My thanks to Tom, an American I met last week at the Detroit conference, for pointing me to this video in which the British blogger ‘Sargon of Akkad’ provides a wonderful commentary on my last interview on London Live TV. I thank Sargon of Akkad warmly for his contribution to the war against the enemies of men and boys.

An excellent overview of the Detroit conference by Jonathan Taylor of ‘A Voice for Male Students’.

One of the best-received presentations at last week’s Detroit conference on men’s issues was that given by a well-known speaker, Stefan Molyneux, who runs a very popular website, Free Domain Radio. The video of his conference presentation is downloadable here.

The title of his talk referred to male genital mutilation, and what he said on that topic was certainly interesting. But for me the material he presented on why some people are violent – in the context of domestic violence and otherwise – was an eye-opener. I won’t spoil what may come as big a surprise to you as it did to me, but the relevant section starts at 12:58.

Ray Barry will be standing for J4MB in next May’s general election. He’s the leader of his own political party, Equal Parenting Alliance, as well as Real Fathers for Justice. New arrangements came into force yesterday for paying child maintenance. Ray was interviewed on the subject by Caroline Martin, a very fair-minded presenter on BBC Radio WM. The audio file is here.