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

Well, life doesn’t get much better than this. Less than an hour ago I was watching the BBC3 programme Free Speech being broadcast live from Cardiff City Hall, when a young man in the audience challenged Laura Bates in connection with our exposure of her lie (in a December 2013 TEDx presentation) about the number of women being killed by partners and ex-partners. Her response was remarkable, and included a request for people to google my name, which has resulted in an explosion of hits on J4MB, where people will learn the background to why we awarded her our ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award – for lying about the number of women being killed by partners and ex-partners. We look forward to posting a piece on this in the next day or two, with a link to the video.

We recently published a piece about a televised debate which is going to be broadcast live on BBC3 TV this evening at 8:00. It was originally billed with the title, ‘Do we live in a sexist country?’ but I see from today’s Daily Mail that the title has been changed to, ‘What Do We Need Feminism For?’ A good question, the answer to which is, of course, ‘Nothing’. The panel will consist of three women and a male comedian. Gender equality is a fine thing. There will be two intelligent women on the panel – Angela Epstein (writer and broadcaster) and Leanne Wood (leader of Plaid Cymru). Laura Bates will also be on the panel.

A donor has just requested a link to an important American report which draws on survey findings from 2011. It was published earlier this month, and a PDF is here.

The 2010 report had been the first to report something that hadn’t been revealed by previous surveys. In the previous 12 month period, the proportion of men who reported having been ‘made to penetrate’ was very similar to the proportion of women who reported having been raped (in both cases, failed attempts count towards the figure).

The 2011 report found that a higher proportion of men (1.7%) reported having been made to penetrate (1.7%), than women reported having been raped (1.6%). The relevant Table is on p5 of the report, and the following is drawn from p5/6:

Characteristics of Sexual Violence Perpetrators
For female rape victims, an estimated 99.0% had only male perpetrators. In addition, an estimated 94.7% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape had only male perpetrators.
For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (an estimated 79.3%) had only male perpetrators. For three of  the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims had only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (an estimated 82.6%), sexual coercion (an estimated 80.0%), and unwanted sexual contact (an estimated 54.7%). For noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, nearly half of male victims (an estimated 46.0%) had only male perpetrators and an estimated 43.6% had only female perpetrators.

Of the estimated 1,921,000 American men who were ‘forced to penetrate’, 1,586,000 were victims of only female perpetrators. The latter figure is equivalent to 83% of the 1,909,000 women who reported being the victims of only male perpetrators.

We’ll have a good deal to say about female sex offenders in our election manifesto, with respect to their sexual abuse of men, women, and children. Given all that’s known about female sex offenders – including that a majority of incarcerated (male) rapists were sexually abused when they were children, by one or more women (Petrovich & Templar, 1984) – the continuing failure of the criminal justice system to hold large numbers of women to account is a long-running scandal.

Men under-report being sexually abused by women to the police. There are a number of reasons. We’re brought up and live in a gynocentric world in which men simply don’t consider themselves as potential victims of sexual abuse by women, so they will be inclined to rationalise that abuse – ‘She was drunk, I was drunk…’. In the same circumstances, but with the genders switched, the woman will regard herself as a victim, and the police will regard the encounter as sexual assault.

They have no choice but to do so. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 explicitly states that drunkenness isn’t a mitigating circumstance for a sexual offender, and only men can rape, by the definition of rape in the Act. The CPS will have no hesitation in pressing charges against the man in question, regarding it as a matter of considerable public interest to do so. The police pass details of few suspected female sex offenders to the CPS for charging decisions, even when the victims are children.

We recently received a response from the Ministry of Justice to our FoI request on the differential treatment of suspected male and female sex offenders. Their letter is here and their Tables on the treatment of suspected male sex offenders here and suspected female sex offenders here.

We’ve previously linked to a CPS report showing that in a six-month period in 2012, the CPS pressed charges against only 29% of the women put forward to them by the police as being strongly suspected of having made false rape allegations (or known to have made them).

The following information from the MoJ Tables speaks for itself, and the Tables also show the situation was very similar 20 years ago:

MEN

4,125 – proceeded against

2,362 – found guilty

1,210 – immediate custodial sentence

WOMEN

49 – proceeded against

28 – found guilty

11 – immediate custodial sentence

A few months ago I bought a copy of National Geographic for a small sum at my local library, because it contained a lengthy article purporting to explain the current state of knowledge about the human brain. On a page just before the article there was a short piece about how women are typically markedly better at facial recognition than men, and speculation as to the evolutionary basis for this difference. In plain English, a gender-typical brain difference was being mooted, although the piece didn’t say so explicitly.

With every month that passes, neuroscientists are discovering and describing more differences between the brains of gender-typical men and women. In our list of recommended books we include one written by a Dutch scientist, Dick Swaab – We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer’s (2014).

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at Cambridge University has demonstrated gender-typical preferences in babies of just a few days of age – males being drawn to mechanical objects, females to human faces. Social conditioning – the social engineers’ explanation for all gender-typical differences – cannot have been a factor at this early stage in these babies’ development.  The article in National Geographic was fascinating, and beautifully illustrated, but what did it report on the current state of knowledge about gender-typical brain differences?

Nothing.

This brings us to an interesting piece on the website ‘Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception’, on the impact of political correctness (cultural Marxism) on Scientific American – here.

We weren’t expecting to be able to extract any more material in relation to the Fawcett Society’s new office – the subject of the previous blog post – but we were wrong. Two estimable supporters have provided us with some interesting links. N supplied a Googlemap image of the front of the building in which the ladies are now working – here.

So the ladies’ new office has a Members’ Entrance. Now ‘member’ is a euphemism for the penis – as any decent dictionary without a feminist Editrix will confirm – so the Members’ Entrance would be …? You’d have thought the Fawcett Society office would be a penis-free zone, wouldn’t you?

There’s more. The second supporter, S, provided a second image of the Fawcett office as well as this. We see the ladies have access to the Plump Café, and:

PLUMP serves coffee and other delicious seasonal savoury and sweet treats from early ’til late.

A team of psychologists at the University of Leighton Buzzard recently published details of a study of radical feminists. Their department holds a herd of radical feminists in captivity to facilitate research into feminist personality disorders and delusional tendencies. They’re treated very humanely, and given all the food and drink they want. They’re given books of photographs of food, drink, toys etc., and they tap on images of the things they want. It turns out that radical feminists are unusually fond of savoury and sweet treats which – for the ‘average’ radical feminist in the study – accounted for 983 calories of her daily intake of 3,417 calories. So the Fawcett ladies should be very happy in their new home, with the Plump Café serving these foodstuffs.

At one time we were considering challenging the charitable status of the Fawcett Society, on the grounds of the clear political motivation of the organisation. We may yet do so, but for the time being we’ve decided that their absurd public statements  – e.g. on the ‘gender pay gap’ – are more of an asset than a liability to the men’s human rights movement.

It’s come to our attention that the Fawcett Society has relocated its London headquarters to an office just north of Bethnal Green: 11-12 The Oval, London E2 9DT. The location seems oddly appropriate, given the hot air that the organisation produces decade after decade, and an arrow on this map points to it. The new office is by the gasworks, in Haggerston. You couldn’t make it up, could you? The Fawcett ladies – along with their followers – were early winners of our Gormless Feminists of the Month award.

In the wake of the Scottish referendum, an insightful and topical piece from Mr Purdy.

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

Predictably, Laura Bates didn’t respond to our public challenge to retract a lie she made in a presentation in London – concerning how many women in the UK are murdered by partners or ex-partners – so she’s a deserving winner of this month’s ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. Her certificate is here:

It’s long overdue for me to acknowledge someone who’s been a supporter from long before I launched J4MB, from soon after I launched the Anti-Feminism League in early 2012. Doris has been a supporter through thick and thin, and I don’t think there’s been a week since then in which we haven’t had at least one discussion. She became a regular and generous donor after I launched J4MB, so she has a special place in the hearts of the people driving J4MB. Today she pointed us to this piece about the vile MP Yvette Cooper – on a mission to be even more vile than Harriet Harman, it would seem – but Doris explained in her email that what she enjoyed most was the top-ranking comment following the article (117 upvotes, 21 downvotes):

Why don’t Labour just make being male a criminal offence, and be done with it?