There’s a lengthy but unremittingly silly article by Catherine Bennett in today’s Observer – here. She does the usual lazy journalist thing of inventing policies we don’t have – for example, that we wish to have women excluded from company boards, which is ridiculous – then attacks the invented policies. She claims Labour is our main target at the general election, although the MPs in two of our three target seats are Tories.
I’ve left a short comment pointing readers to the election manifesto and invite you to post your own comments. Thank you.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I’ve just left the comment below on the Observer site,
In the context of the Stuart Kerner case, Catherine Bennett questions “what constitutes the array of female privilege that the J4MB membership so passionately resents”? I can provide the answer. Kerner, then a teacher, had sex with his 16 year old girl pupil. There has been a storm of protest about his receiving only a suspended sentence because the judge considered that she had groomed him, rather than the reverse. I am equally uneasy about this ruling.
However, I recall the case of Hayley Southwell who was found guilty last August in Carlisle of having sexual activity with her 16 year old female pupil. Southwell had been grooming the girl since she was 15. She also received only a suspended sentence.
Then there was the case of 25 year old Charlotte Holl, a beauty pageant judge, who was found guilty last August in Ipswich of 4 cases of sexual assault on a 12 year old girl. This followed intensive grooming involving some 1200 texts and social media messages. Holl also received only a suspended sentence.
Where was the storm of outrage in these cases? Why did I not hear the outrage voiced on Radio 4’s Today programme, as I did for the Stuart Kerner case? Why was the attorney general not contacted in these cases where the offender was a woman? This is just one of a myriad examples of double standards with which our society is replete, invariably to the benefit of women.
The criminal justice system is commonly lenient to female offenders. This tends to attract little comment. But it is rarely lenient to male offenders, and, where it is, as in the Kerner case, there is outrage that would not occur if the offender were female. This reinforces the existing tendency for harsher treatment of men.
The result is twenty times more men in prison than women. No, men do not commit twenty times more crimes. They commit 3 or 4 times more crimes than women. This is precisely an example of the female privilege which the J4MB membership so passionately resents, Ms Bennett. And it is just one of the twenty such disadvantages listed in the J4MB Manifesto, all similarly egregious.
LikeLike
But that is exactly what you are suggesting as far as a woman is capable of understanding the policy. Any suggestion that a woman might reasonably consume just a little less, or earn what she consumes, is, in a woman’s eyes, a demand that she is absolutely prevented from ever consuming anything again. They can’t think like us and they lack our sense of proportion.
LikeLike