We’re big fans of Janice Fiamengo, a courageous anti-feminist English professor at the University of Ottawa. So it came as very welcome news that she’ll be presenting a weekly series of videos starting next Thursday, 13 August. A trailer (1:27) is here. Two of her statements in the trailer:

Feminist victim ideology is an illness of the mind.

We are witnessing a powerfully malevolent force in ascendance.

In our general election manifesto we explored two forms of paternity fraud (pp 52-54):

– leading a man to believe he’s the biological father of a child, when he’s not. A crime under the Fraud Act (2006) for which the state never prosecutes the woman concerned. Men have to take out civil actions – not many could afford to do so – and cannot get financial compensation for the expense they incurred whilst unwittingly supporting children who were not theirs. At the most they might get compensation for emotional suffering, invariably under £20,000, usually under £10,000
– frustrating a contraceptive method in order to become pregnant – most commonly, a woman ‘forgetting’ to take the daily contraceptive pill

Our manifesto proposals in this area:

1. The government should introduce compulsory paternity testing for all new-born babies, and both parents should be informed of the result of the tests (verbally and in writing) within a week of the babies’ births. If a man is not the biological father of a baby, he should be informed of the fact in the course of a face-to-face meeting with a health professional, and sign a document confirming he’s been made aware of his non-paternity of the child in question.

2. The state should only require a man to have financial responsibility for a child if he’s previously signed a legal declaration that he’s willing to support a child who results from the sexual relationship in question, and a paternity test has proven him to be the child’s biological father.

3. Legislation should be introduced requiring women found guilty of committing the first form of paternity fraud to compensate the affected men for the full sum of their financial contributions to the child’s upbringing.

4. Paternity fraud is such a grave assault upon the human rights of men and children that attempted (but failed) paternity fraud should attract a minimum three month prison sentence. Where a woman has carried out a proven paternity fraud, her minimum prison term should be 12 months. Where the fraud has continued for more than three years, her prison term should be 12 months plus three months in prison for each year of fraud. Frauds relating to two or more children should attract consecutive, not concurrent, sentences.

5. DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as results are known and communicated to both the mother and the putative father, or as soon as criminal prosecutions and any appeals are completed.

We turn to a Daily Mail story sent to us by Ian, which concerns a third form of paternity fraud, a woman leading a man to believe he’s NOT the biological father of a child – here. An extract from the article gives a sense of the problems faced by men in the area of paternal rights:

After putting his name (the gay best friend’s name) on the birth certificate, the pair persisted with their elaborate story, duping the NHS, the local registrar and council officials in a scam which rumbled on for nearly three years.

As his suspicions grew, Mr North (the true father) reported the fraud to police. But he was told to pursue the case as a civil, rather than criminal matter. He also tried to go through social services but had no parental right because he was not named on the birth certificate.

But, in May 2013, when his girl was 27 months, Mr North finally won the right to a DNA test. That showed that he was 99.99 per cent certain to be the father.

At that time, Yates ‘went into hiding’, moving to Glasgow with the child. It took months for Mr North to finally be able to see his daughter and, even then, he was only allowed supervised contact with her for half an hour a week.

He was also banned from revealing that he was the little’s girl father and instead had to pretend he was a friend.

Compulsory paternity testing at birth would have prevented this debacle.

Our thanks to William Gruff for pointing us to this. The Code Pink ladies have ‘angry vaginas’, seemingly. Be sure to catch the lines above and below the photograph of one of their supporters.

Nailed.

Can you imagine a major British television broadcaster – the BBC or Channel 4, say – recording and broadcasting a video like this (8:34) from the programme A Current Affair, broadcast on the Nine Network in Australia? No? Nor can we.

It would seem that with the proposed Safe Campus Act, due process may at last be coming to American campuses. Cases of alleged sexual assault will be handled by the police, and male students will no longer be assumed by ill-equipped university bodies to be guilty until proven innocent. Needless to say, professional feminist grievance collectors are up in arms at the prospect of ever more light being shed on their lying yet lucrative ‘campus rape crisis’ narratives.

The latest piece from COTWA is here.

Why would women lie about having been raped, thereby often ruining innocent men’s lives? A small part of the materials we’ve directed people to, in response to that question:

Janet Bloomfield outlined 13 reasons.

Hannah Wallen considered 6 dangerous rape myths.

Jonathan Taylor explored 10 reasons false rape allegations are common.

There are few areas where ‘feminist theory’ is so demonstrably absurd, as in relation to prostitution. And that’s saying something.

Dr Catherine Hakim is a renowned British sociologist to whom we often refer, as the author of a key paper on gender-typical work ethic differences, Preference Theory (2000). Her research revealed that while four in seven British men are work-centred, only one in seven British women is. This clearly has enormous implications for the gender balance we would expect to find in certain professions, and in the senior levels of (for example) large companies.

She’s also written a book on ‘erotic capital’, and today the Institute of Economic Affairs published her discussion paper on prostitution. A link to her short article on the IEA website is here, and you can leave comments there (or here, obviously).

Yesterday we saw the demise of one of David Cameron’s favourite charities, Kids Company. One of several Mail Online pieces on the matter is here.

I was planning to write a piece on the matter, but a short and insightful piece by the fathers’ rights campaigner ‘Silver Surfer’ came to my attention – here. I thank him for his kind permission to reproduce it here.

Roger Crawford is a campaigner with New Fathers 4 Justice. He dresses as a jester when demonstrating, and he’s written a book with the title Rebel Without A Clue. It’s available to buy here, and we hope it sells well. The book’s entry on Amazon:

Roger was born in 1948 and adopted at birth. He was brought up in the north-west London suburbs and enjoyed a carefree childhood in a world totally different to that of today. Sent to a private Grammar School because his socialist parents were so concerned at his lack of academic ability, he was the only pupil in the history of the School to become a Farm apprentice.

Embracing the free-thinking of the late sixties and early seventies, and concerned that many city children did not know anything of rural life, he founded a charitable society which gave country holidays for free to disadvantaged city children and for a time lived a bohemian type of life in a converted coach.

He also founded and ran a successful Youth Club and ran Gardening classes for the London Borough of Harrow. After happily living with a lady twenty years older than himself for thirteen years he then fell in love with and had a daughter by a married lady his own age. His battle to be a part of his daughter’s life is vividly recorded in his story, and the prejudice and sheer inhumanity of the Family Court system is described in detail.

Protests on roofs followed, plus standing for election in Oxford East in 2010. Roger has also battled the Planning system to enable him to stay on his smallholding in Bedfordshire. This is an entertaining journey through his life with many laugh-out-loud moments as well as the pathos surrounding the loss of his only child.

Roger has been married for twenty years to Rosa and lives and works on his smallholding as well as driving a local school bus. He still works for parents and children’s rights and is a vocal campaigner against child abuse in all its forms.

Enjoy.