William Gruff is one of a number of regular and valued contributors of insightful comments to this blog. He’s just posted a comment in response to our last blog piece, which concerned the ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ Summer Newsletter. In case you might otherwise have missed his comment, here it is, in its entirety:

A friend of mine died of cancer three years ago. He was one of the nicest men I have ever met. However, he was very weak where women were concerned and while in no sense the sort of white knight who jumps at every chance to protect a woman he was completely incapable of standing up to them and was easily manipulated.

Talking of the problems he’d experienced in getting his aggressive cancer diagnosed, he said to me, with some bitterness, while a hospice in-patient, that had he been a woman his concerns about the lump growing in his armpit would not have been laughed at and he would have been examined thoroughly straight away. I don’t think he’d ever have swallowed the red pill, had he lived; he would undoubtedly have seen things from a significantly less gynocentric position however.

The point of all that? I don’t think most men will wake up until they realise that we are being sacrificed on the altar of a hateful ideology for the comfort and convenience of women. Any measure that increases institutionalised female privilege, and consequent male disadvantage, to the point that it can no longer be ignored or tolerated, is to be welcomed. [my emphasis] There is no gain without pain.

The sentence I’ve emphasised accords with our view that feminism will ultimately (and inevitably) fail because feminists’ appetite for female privileging is insatiable. The community of men (and women) who understand that feminism is about gender supremacy, not gender equality, is growing by the day.

Our thanks to Nigel for this. Anyone who is deluded enough to accept the government’s rationale for including violence against men and boys within the term ‘Violence Against Women and Girls’ – VAWG – should read the report. More clued-up people will also find it interesting.

FGM alone takes up pp.4-7. A few examples of the report’s lack of interest in violence committed against men and boys, starting with a few lines from the Foreword (p.3):

Much has happened since our last newsletter in March not least the election of a new Government which has made it clear that protecting women and girls from violence, [my emphasis] and supporting victims and survivors of sexual violence, remains a key priority.

The Government is committed to publishing an updated VAWG strategy in the Autumn, and we are currently engaged in working with departments across government, and consulting with women’s groups, [my emphasis] third sector organisations and wider experts, on the development of that strategy.

On p.10:

Government Equalities Office
Launch of Online Abuse Website:
Stop Online Abuse
In June 2015, the Government launched a new website (Stop Online Abuse) to help people take action against offensive, damaging or threatening content in all forms of media, particularly online. The website provides practical advice for women and LGB&T adults [my emphasis] on how to recognise abuse, steps to take to report it and how to get offensive content removed.

So, the term ‘people’ doesn’t include heterosexual men. I guess that must mean they’re never abused online.

Just a few examples of the many organizations in the report, with no interest in violence committed against men and boys:

Women’s Aid – pp.19-22

Rape Crisis – p.25. Their entry includes this:

Rape Crisis supports hard-hitting new Army campaign on sexual consent
The Army has launched a bold new campaign intended to raise soldiers’ awareness and understanding of rape. In a series of hard-hitting posters, the campaign stresses the importance of gaining full, freely given consent to any sexual activity and on every occasion. Unlike many campaigns aimed at sexual violence prevention, the posters address their messaging towards those with the real power to prevent rape, the rapists and potential rapists, rather than trying to ‘educate’ victims and potential victims about how to ‘keep themselves safe’ from attack.

The campaign will probably increase the number of women being raped, by disinclining them to take reasonable responsibility for their own safety. Does Rape Crisis or the Army seriously imagine that potential rapists will be deterred from raping, as a result of a campaign ‘to raise soldiers’ awareness and understanding of rape’?

We can be sure that ‘freely given consent’ will exclude occasions when women have drunk alcohol – gasp! – and later regretted sexual encounters, retrospectively withdrawing their ‘consent’, thereby turning the encounters into rape. Because God forbid any woman can be expected to have any moral agency after touching a drop of alcohol, although one of the key reasons women – in common with men – drink alcohol is to lower their inhibitions.

White Ribbon – pp.26,27

BAWSO – Working with Men in the Fight Against FGM – pp.35-36. No recognition that FGM is overwhelmingly carried out by women at the behest of women.

Curiously, there is no organization cited in the report, working with women in the fight against MGM. That would, after all, be the wrong sort of gender equality.

[The edited interview is now on our YouTube channel – here.]

It was, of course, inconceivable that the BBC feminist propaganda outlet Newsnight might invite non-feminist men or women to comment on Jeremy Corbyn’s suggestion of introducing women-only railway carriages. And so it was that tonight the programme invited two feminists to be interviewed on the matter, Victoria Richards and Holly Baxter. The section is from 23:22 – 28:50 on iPlayer, and it will be available for 29 days – here.

The narrative that Newsnight – and all other mainstream media programmes – will never broadcast is of males being sexually harassed by females on trains, even when the former is a boy, the latter a woman, and women nearby are laughing – such as here. If you consider the woman’s apparent drunkenness a mitigating factor, ask yourself this:

Would you excuse a man for sexually harassing a girl on a train, in front of his laughing friends, because he was drunk?

Of course you wouldn’t, and nor would we. It’s the classic gender double standard. The solution to the problem is perfectly obvious. Men-only carriages.

A short gem from a smart lady who lives on the other side of the pond.

If you’re in any doubt about whether you’re a feminist or not, Fidelbogen has kindly provided some guidance.

I’ve been invited to the Mankind Initiative National Conference. The associated leaflet is here, the booking form here. From the first document:

Who should attend?
Those working in community safety, public health, social services, domestic abuse, the legal system (police, solicitors,
CPS, probation), adult and children safeguarding, health, housing associations, health service, victim support, anti-social
behaviour, men’s health and welfare, equality & diversity, voluntary/third sector, academics and researchers.

Extraordinarily, politicians are excluded from the list – the only group of people in a position to markedly increase the resources made available to male victims of domestic violence. I doubt any more resources will be available to abused men in 20 years’ time than are available today, given the longstanding reluctance on the part of organizations such as Mankind Initiative – and researchers too, for that matter – to do whatever the hell it takes to engage with politicians, and publicly shame them for their indifference to men’s suffering.

I’ve declined the invitation to attend the conference. I can’t justify spending J4MB funds on it.

6oodfella is a Scotsman, and one of my favourite audio and video bloggers. At times he’s had me in tears, laughing. The last post we published – about women in male-dominated workplaces – started me thinking about pieces we’ve published about female-dominated workplaces. About 18 months ago 6oodfella posted an audio commentary on a newspaper article written by Samantha Brick, who’d started a TV production company with a policy of hiring only women. What could possibly go wrong? Enjoy.

Give me strength. From the article:

Previous findings have shown that working in male-dominated places can cause social isolation for women. It has also been linked with performance pressures, sexual harassment, and obstacles to professional mobility.

Women also report experiencing moments of both high visibility and apparent invisibility, as well as doubts about their competence.

‘… can cause social isolation for women.’ Hold on, are we talking about working environments here, or places to go for a chat with other women?

‘Women also report experiencing moments of both high visibility and apparent invisibility…’. Why, those heartless patriarchs! In some moments paying women their full attention, in other moments paying them no attention. Have they not read the Patriarchy Council guidance note 2015/781, ‘Female colleagues: How to ensure they’re never made to feel uncomfortable’?

Some sanity in the comments section, from a woman:

Rubbish! I’ve worked in all female offices and hated it. Currently in an all male team and love it. I’m not a token woman and never been made to feel that either. I’m happy and productive and less stressed than I’ve ever been. Stop the man bashing!!

A man responded to her comment:

Thank you. I can safely say that the women who work with me feel the same, we all just do our jobs. The annoying thing is, I’ve not witnessed sexism in the workplace ever, but I guess it must be rife if it’s always in the papers.

Our thanks to a number of people for pointing us to this. From the article:

Mr Corbyn says he will consult women on the suggestion.

Well, that’s fair. It’s not as if men should be consulted despite being affected by the move, being squeezed into crowded carriages, and being laughed at by the women in the women-only carriages.

This is nothing less than gender apartheid, with all men visibly becoming second-class citizens. All men will be considered guilty of having harassed women on public transport, and suffer accordingly.

Jessica Hynes (42) is an actress, possibly best known to British audiences for her role in the Olympic Games satire Twenty Twelve. It would not be unkind to say that the role, whilst funny, wasn’t ‘stretching’ for a professional actress.

Television comedy quiz shows these days have to include token women on their teams, and this policy is steadily ruining a number of them, including a personal favourite first broadcast on Channel 4 in 2013, 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown. In the series Rachel Riley (numbers) is reliably brilliant, beautiful, and funny, likewise Susie Dent (Dictionary Corner).

In stark contrast, the token female contestants are generally woeful. I challenge anyone who reads this post to point to even one substantive contribution – humorous or otherwise – by Jessica Hynes in the edition of the programme which has just been aired – here. You might have to register, and suffer some ads, but I ask you to persevere.

To my mind, Ms Hynes could have been replaced with a bag of cement, with no loss to the entertainment value of the show. In the course of 60 minutes, I failed to spot more than a few seconds of intentional humour on her part. Any one of hundreds of professional male comedians could have replaced her, contributed substantially to the programme, and earned money which they would have deserved more than Ms Hynes did for her dire contribution to the programme. Hopefully she’ll donate her appearance fee to charity.