Our thanks to Kate for this.

JB nails it. As usual.

My brain hurts after reading the objectives of the Women’s Equality Party. It gets worse. Their response to, ‘Why us, why now?’ is this. The latter starts with this remarkable claim:

Every day in the UK women face inequality at home, at work, in politics, and in daily life.

A theme that runs through WEP materials – apart from the relentless whining – is the absence of recognition that inequalities of outcomes (e.g. a minority of MPs are women) are the natural consequences of women’s (and men’s) freely-made choices – in this case, far more men than women seek to become prospective parliamentary candidates. Inequalities of desirable outcomes, anyway. Inequalities of undesirable outcomes are just fine, not even worth mentioning.

I don’t see the WEP calling for “Women’s equality” – what a ridiculous term! – with respect to the 20 areas in our general election manifesto.

Another meaning for WEP occurs to me:

Whiny Entitlement Princesses

Kathy Gyngell recently wrote an excellent piece for ‘The Conservative Woman’ website on boys in education – here. Herbert Purdy posted an insightful response, and we’re pleased to see the site has made it their Reader’s Comment of the Day.

Our thanks to BJSparky for this image.

Our thanks to Andrew for alerting us to this story.

On yesterday’s BBC flagship breakfast radio news programme Today, Yvette Cooper said she wants a ‘feminist approach to the economy’. Did she mean by this that she wants women to work harder – maybe in more challenging, more highly-paid lines of work, or in more senior positions – in order to collectively pay 50% of the income tax collected in the UK, rather than just 28%, £69 BILLION p.a. less than men? Er, no.

The final five minutes of today’s programme featured James Naughtie interviewing two dreary feminists on what a ‘feminist approach to the economy’ is. The discussion is on iPlayer, from 2:54:50 – 2:59:50 – here. We will load the (edited) piece onto our YouTube channel in the coming few days.

One of the dreary feminists was Jane Humphries, a Professor of Economic History at the University of Oxford with predictably feminist obsessions about women, and predictable disinterest in men. She nominated herself for a ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award by referring to ‘the persistence of glass ceilings’. I could email her to suggest she orders a copy of The Glass Ceiling Delusion and she would certainly learn a lot from it, which is precisely why she wouldn’t order it. Professors today aren’t what they once were.

Two days ago we posted a link to a 75-minute long video presenting some of the findings of the Global Survey on Circumcision Harm. Anyone who believes that MGM doesn’t lead to physical and mental harm needs to watch it.

Having watched the video, Roger Fallon responded by starting a petition to the government – here. It consists of this:

Outlaw male as well as female genital mutilation, equalizing children’s rights

The crime of so-called FGM (female genital mutilation) is often in the news. But why is the mutilation of female children proscribed in law whereas the mutilation of boys is allowed to continue without question? Excepting rare medical cases, there is no rational excuse for this primitive practice.

This petition is founded on the idea that boys and girls have an equal right to a whole body, leaving aside good and proper medical reasons for removing a part of it. The barbaric cutting away of parts of the genitals of infants and children clearly violates this right, as is recognized in the current law against FGM. This petition merely asks that boys and girls be treated equally in UK law.

I’ve signed the petition, it took only seconds, and you need to click on a link in an email that will be sent to you not long afterwards, or your signature won’t be registered. You need to be a British citizen and/or a UK resident to sign.

If the petition gets 10,000 signatures, the government will respond to it. 100,000 signatures, and the petition will be considered for debate in parliament.

Please sign it. Thank you for showing your support for our #1 campaigning issue.

There is just no end to the propaganda war against men.

In the Ashfield constituency in which I stood at the general election, Gloria De Piero MP – Shadow Minister for Women & Equalities – had two posters in her office window which presented a picture of only men being perpetrators of domestic violence, only women being victims. One poster advertised the services of a helpline, and had a crude drawing of a cowering woman in a cage. We called the helpline, and discovered the service was for female victims only.

In the same window were two posters for breast cancer, none for prostate cancer. Roughly as many men die from prostate cancer as women die from breast cancer in the UK.

Our blog piece on the matter, along with links to the four posters, is here. GDP won two ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards, one for the lying narrative about domestic violence. That award certificate is here.

[Note added 17.8.15: The video of the presentation has just been uploaded to our YouTube channel, with the same background details as below – here.]

I’ve just watched a very interesting video (49:31), which I found on the Men Do Complain website. I recommend it strongly. It reviews the findings of the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (2012), and the presenter – at the International Genital Autonomy conference in Frankfurt, in May 2015 – is Tim Hammond, an independent researcher. The associated website is here.

The video should be compulsory viewing for people who claim MGM is harmless. They include Professor David Katz and Dr Simon Hochhauser of Milah UK, the campaign group set up by the organizations of the Jewish community in the UK to promote and protect the right of the Jewish community to carry out religious circumcisions in accordance with their religious beliefs. In a recent letter to J4MB, they claimed:

Brit Milah is a minor procedure, carried out by a trained practitioner in a clean environment and has no recognized negative impact on the child or on the rest of his life.

‘… no recognized negative impact…’. The claim is more than disingenuous, it is outrageous. I’d like to see them make the point to the American man who underwent Brit Milah as an infant, and later renounced his faith, 31:23 – 32:50 on the video.

The final nine minutes of the video (from 39:52) consists of the start of an hour-long video of a 23-year-old Egyptian Muslim who was evidently deeply traumatised by his forcible circumcision at the age of 10.

Brian D Earp is a Research Fellow in Ethics at the University of Oxford. We recently published a link to his 2014 paper exploring whether there should be different ethical discourses on FGM and MGM. Our attention has been drawn to his short but interesting earlier piece, Criticising religious practices, published in 2013.