Since Laura Bates has signally failed to provide any evidence to support her claim – commonly made by feminists – that ‘over two women a week are killed by partners or ex-partners in the UK’, we thought we’d take the trouble of pointing people to government statistics which prove her claim to be false, and Laura a worthy winner of our latest ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award.

We refer you to this report from the Office for National Statistics. On page 11, early in the section titled, ‘Victims aged 16 and over’, we find:

In 2012/13, just over half (53%) of female victims aged 16 years or over were killed by their partners / ex-partners (76 offences).

One of the killers was a woman, so 75 women in 2012/13 were killed by male partners / ex-partners. Laura Bates is either lying in claiming that over two women per week are being killed by partners or ex-partners, or she’s claiming there are fewer than 38 weeks in the year.

For those of you who’d like to read around the subject, you might like to click on this link which will put you in a good position to research official statistics on homicides, whether between partners and ex-partners, or not. If you click on ‘Download PDF’ at the top of the page – next to the Adobe icon – you’ll be taken to the aforementioned PDF.

I’ll email Laura Bates a link to this post in a moment, inviting her either to substantiate her repeated claim, or to publicly retract it.

The continued survival of AVfM should be a matter of importance to everyone concerned about the assaults on the human rights of men and boys around the world. AVfM is the beating heart of the global men’s human rights movement. AVfM alone has the reputation to host conferences such as the historic one held in Detroit three months ago. The next one will doubtless be even more impressive.

Paul Elam and his colleagues have been stalwart supporters of J4MB since our launch in February 2013, and I’d like to ask for your support for them now. I’ve just contributed what I can afford to their current fundraiser, and I ask you to do the same – here. The six-minute-long video is worth catching. Thank you for supporting AVfM.

A substantial anti-male bias exists across the criminal justice system, in part accounting for the fact there are over 80,000 male prisoners and fewer than 4,000 female prisoners. We believe a bias exists within the police with respect to the relative numbers of men and women they charge with criminal offences, and the number they put forward to the CPS for charging decisions. But what about the CPS itself? Surely it wouldn’t show an anti-male bias with respect to its charging decisions? Please excuse the bad joke.

Earlier this afternoon we received from the CPS a communication – a letter and an associated Table – in response to one of our recent FoI requests. The Table shows that the CPS prosecuted 64.8% of the women brought to it for charging decisions, and 72.4% of the men. Put another way:

The CPS is 12% more likely to decide to prosecute a man suspected of having committed a crime, than a woman.

This month’s award goes to Meg Hillier, a Labour MP, for her suggestion that more women would cycle if they could ‘pootle along’ in new ‘slow lanes’. Predictably, she was selected from an all-women shortlist for prospective parliamentary candidates. Her certificate is at the end of this blog piece, it contains a link to our original blog piece on her comments about women cycling.

We’ve introduced a new image for this award, after reviewing possible new images on an internet photo library. 

We warmly welcome a new website to the scene, ‘mra-uk’. We believe it’s connected somehow with the impressive RedPill UK website, to which we’ve linked a number of times recently – most notably with respect to a 72-page report on the anti-male biases of the criminal justice system. A new blog piece on the new site comments on the (ironically) highly sexist BBC3 programme broadcast live two nights ago, which asked ‘Do we live in a sexist country?’ Enjoy.

It’s nearing the end of the month, so we’ve asked around for some ideas for this month’s ‘Gormless Feminist of the Month’ and ‘Whiny Feminist of the Month’ awards. One person stood clear of the crowd for the first award – and was nominated by some for the second award, too – the feminist who runs the Mancheeze blog. She recently published this piece in which, with startling originality, she accused me of being a misogynist. I made the mistake of posting a few comments, and she challenge me on a number of issues. The impact of increasing female representation on corporate boards is one that comes to mind.

When I posted comments with links to materials supporting my position, she removed the links, on the pretext they led to misogynistic websites. In the end I gave up commenting, and I now regret having wasted my trying to engage with the silly woman. When did anyone ever have a rational discussion with a radical feminist? By definition, it can’t be done. She keeps wild house mice as pets, her blog profile informs us. I’d have had more chance of engaging them in a rational discussion.

She gets the followers she deserves. One deemed herself qualified to comment on the issue of ‘women on boards’ despite being unwilling – or unable, or too lazy? – to grasp (or learn) the difference between correlation and causation.

The award certificate is here:

Some months ago I was pleased to have Sargon of Akkad, a British blogger/commentator, critique one of the London Live TV discussions in which I’d taken part, in a piece titled The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum. I imagine Dina Rickman, a ‘journalist’ also in the discussion, was less pleased by the critique. Her dire contributions to the discussion led to her ‘Whiny Feminist of the Month’ award.

The actress (note, not actor) Emma Watson recently gave what was, by all accounts, a very silly presentation about feminism and gender equality at the UN. I was determined not to waste any time on it, but Sargon of Akkad has just published an 11-minute critique of it on AVfM, which is well worth watching. Enjoy.

Different people, different place, same conclusions.

The Mankind Initiative video on this theme was the original and best – here. Is there much point in recording any more videos making precisely the same point? Men and women in the men’s human rights movement spend way too much time repeating what others have already done, sometimes many times before. I’m as guilty as the next person for doing so.

Last night on BBC TV we witnessed something quite remarkable. Laura Bates lied about having lied (about the number of women being killed by partners and ex-partners) – the lie that led to us recently presenting her with our ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. Our thanks to K for loading the piece onto our YouTube channel – here. Please leave any comments there rather than on this post. We’ve added some commentary and the times of the points where Laura lies (twice). The undoubted star of the show, a young man who challenged her about her lie, makes his appearance at 2:39. If we ever discover his identity, we’ll present him with our ‘Winston’ award. It will be richly deserved.

[Note added 4.10.14: A link to the government statistics which prove that Laura Bates’s claim was a lie is here.]

Laura Bates recently won our ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award, due to a lie she uttered in a presentation in December 2013 about the number of women killed by partners and ex-partners. She declined to retract the lie when publicly challenged by J4MB on the matter.

When challenged on the BBC3 programme Free Speech Live about the matter earlier this evening, she repeated the lie. We will publish a blog post on the matter tomorrow, along with a link to the video footage.

Ms Bates was a particularly deserving winner of the award, and her certificate is here.