As the election approaches, we’ll be using more of our funds for campaign-related materials. Today the first of our election posters was put up, one of a small number of posters in Bedford post office (next to the bus station). We plan a series of posters in the same location over the coming 12 months, taking us beyond the general election. The design of the poster is here, feel free to print it off and/or distribute it as you see fit. I’ve just spent 10 minutes watching the queue of waiting customers file slowly past the posters, and I’m pleased to report that ours was attracting more attention than the others combined, with a number of people making a note of our URL.

If you have a spare moment, we invite you to send in your comments about the poster.

The Canadian journalist Barbara Kay gave a terrific speech at the Detroit conference. The video and associated transcript are available here.

Some time ago we published a response from a social worker to one of our pieces on homelessness. She wrote:

If a homeless woman comes into my office on a Friday afternoon I’m required to give her what she asks for, whether it’s accommodation, food, clothing or money. All four, if she asks for them.

If a homeless man comes into my office on a Friday afternoon, I’m required to send him back onto the street with nothing.

The state’s brutality towards men in crisis situations knows no bounds. I ask you to join me in signing this petition, relating to a former soldier killed by the state. Thank you.

Another gem from Janet Bloomfield (‘JudgyBitch’), ironically related to the removal of a wedding ring. Enjoy.

An interesting new article just published by AVfM.

Only a day or two ago a female psychologist appeared on a major news programme stating confidently that domestic violence in the UK is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, and DV – or the threat of it, whether covert or overt – is one manifestation of how men control women in a patriarchal society. Academics refer to this as the ‘male control theory of intimate partner violence’. Many studies over many years have shown this to be utter nonsense, yet it remains a defining conviction of those controlling the distribution of state funding towards organisations supporting victims of domestic violence.

Our thanks for Nigel for pointing us towards a very interesting study which has been attracting widespread media coverage in recent weeks. The full Abstract:

The aim of this study was to test predictions from the male control theory of intimate partner violence (IPV) and Johnson’s [Johnson, M.P. (1995). Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 282–294] typology. A student sample (N = 1,104) reported on their use of physical aggression and controlling behavior, to partners and to same?sex non?intimates. Contrary to the male control theory, women were found to be more physically aggressive to their partners than men were, [our emphasis] and the reverse pattern was found for aggression to same?sex non?intimates. Furthermore, there were no substantial sex differences in controlling behavior, which signi?cantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes. IPV was found to be associated with physical aggression to same-sex non-intimates, thereby demonstrating a link with aggression outside the family. Using Johnson’s typology, women were more likely than men to be classed as “intimate terrorists,” which was counter to earlier ?ndings. Overall, these results do not support the male control theory of IPV [our emphasis]. Instead, they ?t the view that IPV does not have a special etiology, and is better studied within the context of other forms of aggression.

It’s always an education and a pleasure to read or listen to Angry Harry’s output, and this is no exception. Harry, thank you, as always.

Enjoy.

Quentin Letts is a columnist and author I never tire of reading, and I’ve been catching up with some of his recent articles published by Mail Online. This article from about three weeks ago caught my eye, for reasons which will become clear. It concerns what Nick Clegg must consider a trial, his weekly Deputy PMQs. And it must surely seem like a torture session when Harriet Harman – deputy leader of the Labour party – starts haranguing him. The odious woman who recently whined about not having been appointed deputy prime minister by Gordon Brown, after the departure of John Prescott from the post.

An extract from Quentin’s article:

Mr Clegg’s oppo’ is Harriet Harman and she only entered the fray yesterday during the Topical Questions section near the end. Miss Harman is another politician who could do with a tickle under the armpits. How remorselessly whiny she so often sounds. Labour is in Opposition. It should be depicting sunlit uplands, not dank alleys of grievance.

‘How remorselessly whiny she so often sounds’. A good point, well made. And with this inspiration from Mr Letts, we award Ms Harman the July 2014 ‘Whiny Feminist of the Month’ award – her certificate is here.

Ms Harman previously won out Harpy Lifetime Achievement Award – here. She remains highly eligible for two of our other awards, ‘Lying Woman of the Month’ and ‘Gormless Woman of the Month’ as well as an award presented by another site, ‘Entitlement Princess of the Month’.

Among my favourite pieces about Harriet Harman is a short Daily Mash piece with the glorious title, ‘Women still face discrimination, says jumped-up cow’. It’s downloadable (along with a number of other Daily Mash pieces) here.

Harman married the trade union official Jack Dromey in 1982. She’s a keen advocate of all-women PPC shortlists – indeed, she introduced the legislation enabling them in 2003 – but didn’t use her influence to have an all-women shortlist employed when Dromey was seeking to be appointed as the candidate in a safe Labour seat. We can add ‘hypocrite’ to her long list of unfortunate traits. You almost have to feel sorry for Dromey. He has the haunted look of a man who’s been married to a truly vile feminist for 32 years.

It’s difficult not to sink into despair concerning the ‘gender pay gap’ when even journalists at the Daily Mail – always female journalists, needless to say – can write pieces like this, failing to point out that while the pay gap exists, it’s long been known to be wholly attributable to choices men and women make with regards to the world of work, including career choices, hours worked, seniority attained etc. The piece even manages to include gems such as:

A survey by Talking Talent, a consultancy firm working to inspire working women, hinted that workplace sexism is keeping women out of top roles, with 12 per cent of women saying they have been passed over for promotion because of their sex.

‘Working to inspire working women’. Why do women need ‘inspiring’? Maybe because they’d prefer a better work/life balance, more time to spend with their families and friends etc.? Let’s consider the final part of the sentence, and present it another way:

… with 88 per cent of women saying they haven’t been passed over for promotion because of their sex.

Hmm, it’s not exactly a problem of epidemic proportions, is it? And you have to ask, why is it implicitly accepted that the 12% of women who said they’d been passed over for promotion because of their sex were correct in their beliefs? Apart from the final four paragraphs about Dame Stephanie Shirley, the whole piece could have been penned by the Fawcett Society. That odious organisation – winner of the inaugural ‘Gormless Women of the Month’ award – is referenced in the piece.

Moving on. Another extract:

Shadow women’s minister Gloria De Piero told the Evening Standard ‘Whether you’re a chief executive or hairdresser, women across the capital are being paid less than men for doing the same or equivalent work. There are some great examples of companies that are leading the way in efforts to close the gap but delivering equal pay should be a priority for all employers.’

Of course the daft woman presents no evidence to back her assertion that ‘women… are being paid less for doing the same or equivalent work’. If women were being paid less for doing the same work as men, we’d be seeing thousands of court cases brought under the terms of the Equality Act 2010 (which incorporated the content of the Equal Pay Act 1970), and firms could improve their profits by replacing their male employees with female employees. Indeed, why would firms ever hire male employees, if potential female employees are available?

As for ‘equivalent work’, that’s nothing more than a sneaky feminist invention to boost the pay of women in ‘line of work x’, by claiming it’s equivalent to ‘line of work y’ – cynically omitting factors that disincline women to work in the latter lines, such as risk to life and limb, unpleasant working conditions, physically onerous work, unsocial hours, long periods spent away from home etc.

And so it is that we present Gloria de Piero MP with this month’s ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. Her certificate is here: