Our thanks to James for this – a Yale University student nominating herself for an Entitlement Princess of the Month award. The (male) academic is a saint, putting up with her behaviour as well as he did.

What’s with the students clicking their fingers, for heaven’s sake? Is that to pander to feminists’ sensibilities? Are the harridans ‘triggered’ by hand clapping? What dysfunctional people they all are. I’d have liked to see another student – male or female – telling ‘Shrieking Girl’ she’s a blithering idiot. Someone needed to.

When you pander to difficult people, they only get worse, and ever more demanding. Isn’t that what we’ve seen with feminists, decade after decade? Their appetite for power and control is insatiable.

I can understand now why Professor Janice Fiamengo has chosen for her talk title at ICMI16, in London:

How Feminism is Destroying Higher Education.

Pathetic. The writer is a female ‘expert in personal branding and marketing’, and she writes:

Don’t get me wrong, I still fully believe in the value of women working with one another, through mentorship and sponsorship, to help build one another up and advance their careers. There are a number of companies that do great work helping women in business to grow professionally, take on new challenges, and shatter the so-called glass ceiling. [Note: why do women, and women alone, need ‘helping’, decade after decade? When will companies start to treat them equally, not preferentially?]

But I think more senior leaders – which today are largely men – can play a more active role. My question back to the gentleman at my talk was ‘when was the last time you nominated a high performing female executive for an award? Advocated on her behalf at the senior leadership meeting?’ It must always be based on merit and performance, [don’t you just love that weaselly rider?] but sometimes women need an active sponsor to help reinforce they are worthy of that kind of recognition.

Nominating high performing female executives for an award. Why do women always need celebrating for what a man will do without needing such recognition? It’s a sign of emotional neediness, along with women’s need for role models (and who will be the role models’ role models, anyway?). We return, as always, to Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000). Four out of seven British men are ‘work-centred’, only one in seven British women is.

My experience over 30 years in business was that of the people who were not keen on self-promotion, the women were more likely to be promoted than the men. The writer of the article is arguing for yet more female privileging, because women’s appetite for privilege is insatiable.

Our thanks to Martin for this. The start of the article:

Bearded men will just have to take it on the chin – they are, apparently, more sexist. A study found that men who sported facial hair hold more hostile views towards women. One theory is that beards give them an air of masculinity, power, and dominance.

The link will come as a surprise to the thousands of hipsters – young, urban professions who have carefully cultivated lumberjack-style beards to affect an earthy look.

The Australian researchers quizzed more than men aged 18 to 72 on levels of hostile and benevolent sexism and then investigated whether there were differences between the clean shaven and those with facial hair – stubble, moustachioed, goateed, or bearded.

Hostile sexism was defined as having derogatory patriarchal views, such as holding the view that most women interpret innocent remarks as being sexist and believing that once a woman gets a man to commit to him, she will try to keep him under her thumb.

Benevolent sexism is well-intentioned and involves helping and protecting women by holding open doors or insisting on paying for dinner, rather than splitting the bill. While some may see this as chivalrous, it is argued it is damaging because it reinforces the idea that women are the weaker sex.

So that’s it. With my new beard, grown for Movember but started in Moctober, I’m accused of not only sexism, but hostile sexism. A reminder of how this is defined in the article:

Hostile sexism was defined as having derogatory patriarchal views, such as holding the view that most women interpret innocent remarks as being sexist and believing that once a woman gets a man to commit to him, she will try to keep him under her thumb.

That’s been my experience of women throughout my adult life, and I’m 57. I plead guilty as charged.

There are some gems in the comments section, as you’d expect. A quick glance turned up these:

Those famous Australian studies…

What about wimen with moustaches ie all feminists?

We thank Richard Duncker of Men Do Complain for filming and editing a video (6:30) of the recent anti-MGM protest in Parliament Square, just published on our YouTube channel, with Richard’s kind permission. Please leave any comments there, rather than here.

We’ve posted a little background to the piece in the video description. We were, of course, only yards away from Philip Davies’s historic debate on men’s issues, the first such debate ever held in parliament.

Priceless. Be sure to check out at least a few of the comments on Guido Fawkes’s piece.

Moving.

Our thanks to M for this.

It’s difficult to know where to start with this story. For one thing, male unemployment is higher than female unemployment in the UK, and unemployment is a bigger suicide risk factor for men than women, so anything that’s designed to drive up female employement at the cost of male employment is bound to contribute to the already high male suicide rate – including the government initiatives designed to drive women into traditionally male-dominated fields of work, such as engineering.

Anti-male bias in recruitment and promotion is endemic in the public sector, but we’re seeing more cases in the private sector, facilitated in both cases by female-dominated Human Remains departments. The means in the public sector is often the Equality Act 2010, which is gender-blind, but in practise it’s only ever used to preference women over men with respect to jobs in pleasant surroundings. I’ve never heard of a case of it being used to preference men over women, and of course women have a virtual monopoly of unchallenging administrative jobs in both sectors.

Then there’s the issue in the Daily Mail story of ‘unconscious bias’. An extract from the piece:

HSBC Bank said it would introduce a range of measures to promote women across its 37,000-strong workforce – which includes 5,500 senior jobs.

These include implementing the Government’s new ‘name blind’ CV screening initiative for both junior and senior rules. It is hoped that blanking out the names of candidates will eradicate potential ‘unconscious bias’ in the initial selection process and ‘ensure that candidates proceed to interview on merit’.

The bank will require recruitment firms to send it ‘50/50 candidate shortlists’ for all senior manager roles.

The idea that men display ‘unconscious bias’ towards recruiting and promoting men is yet another feminist myth that won’t die. We know from Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket (2008) that the group displaying strong in-group preference is not men, but women.

Two years ago we posted a piece titled, ‘Stuart Gulliver, Group Chief Executive, HSBC – sexist, racist, ageist.’ An extract:

Stuart Gulliver, 54, Group Chief Executive of HSBC, calls his industry ‘male, pale and stale’, managing to fit into just four words sexism, racism, and ageism. The four women on his bank’s board – out of a total of 17 directors – are all non-executives. Does that alone not tell this man anything?

The piece included a link to a study of German banks which found that increasing the proportion of women on executive boards increased risk taking. This makes a mockery of the feminist claim that if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters, the financial crash of 2009 would not have happened.

Unusually for a piece on a gendered matter, the journalist is a man, James Salmon. The only intelligent content in his whole feminist-friendly article is the following, right at the end:

But the initiative was dismissed as ‘nonsense’ by David Buik, a veteran commentator from broker Panmure Gordon. He said:

‘If half of senior jobs are filled by women on merit then so be it. But just to clutter the respective teams up with women on a quota basis has to be nonsense.

Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions, failed to respond by the required deadline to our FOI request asking for minutes of meetings she’s had since she took on her role, with organizations advocating for victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse. Her response is now FIVE weeks overdue.

Our letter to Ms Saunders is here, and in a moment I’ll alert the Crown Prosecution Service to this blog post. We’ll publish a post each week on the delay by Alison Saunders, until we get a response.

You couldn’t make this s*** up, could you? The VAT on shaving products is 20%, the VAT on sanitary products 5%. We look forward to George Osborne passing on the government’s Shaving Tax money – a great deal more than is paid by women for sanitary products – to men’s charities such as The Mankind Initiative.