Our thanks to a particularly generous donor for this:

Hi Mike,

Hope you are well. Have you heard about WASPI (Women Against State Pension Inequality)? Here they are on Facebook:

Link #1.

You’d be forgiven for thinking the MHRM is making a breakthrough, and that these women are campaigning for some sort of compensation for the men who had to wait 5 years longer for a state pension on the grounds of their gender, despite contributing the vast majority of those funds in the first place, and dying earlier than women.

Nope. WASPI are campaigning for the equalisation of state pension ages TO BE DONE AT A SLOWER RATE. They are arguing that they haven’t been given enough notice that are now going to be treated equally when it comes to state pensions. They think THEY are the ones being discriminated against here. They are actively campaigning for an inequality to be MAINTAINED for longer.

Sorry for the shouty capitals but I am angry. There is even a donation site here, to help fund their legal appeal:

Link #2.

[Note: the £6,000 target was reached five months ago.]

I only hope that the idiots who pledge their money to this legal fund might end up losing it if the case comes before a judge with some perspective and common sense. But I won’t hold my breath.

Hope you have a happy Christmas, all the same.

Cheers,

<Name redacted>

Enjoy.

Our thanks to Sean for this. The 22-year-old student was jailed for two years, presumably because her victim was a woman, not a man. We’ve seen countless women convicted of far worse crimes against men go unpunished, with a suspended sentence. Most were told they were extremely lucky to have escaped custodial sentences. How do female criminals not laugh out loud in court when they hear that, time and again?

Very insightful. Kathy’s father was a vicar.

Our thanks to Alan for this. From the article, on the ‘International Alliance of Women’ website:

Misconceived equality
The Norwegian Association for Women’s Rights (NKF) considers female conscription as a misunderstanding of the concept of gender equality and the intentions of the Law on Equality. Gender equality implies first and foremost that women and men should have the same human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Women should be valued and allocated power and resources on equal terms with men [note: allocated – women shouldn’t be expected to earn those things in the way men have to, through the application of hard work, expertise, experience…]. But women and men do not have to be alike or do the same things to be equal.

To ensure gender equality it is important in many cases that women and men are treated equally. But they should not necessarily be treated equally in all situations. [Plain English: We’ll demand equality with respect to the things we want, such as ‘more women on boards’, we’ll demand continuing inequality in the things we don’t want, e.g. conscription.]

‘Misconceived equality’. Priceless.

Good points, well made. The end of the article:

Is it really worth the risk of undermining what is, and has always been, the best infantry in the world – and, this critical element of our national defence – for the sake of a social engineering exercise imposed by politicians with absolutely no experience of war?

I know not one serving or retired infantryman who supports such a move – except for those who do so as a means of career advancement or of proving their politically correct credentials. All, however, know in their hearts that it is wrong.

Despite that, I fear this policy will undoubtedly happen. Politicians will exploit our generals’ innate ‘can-do’ attitude to make it work.

In parallel, infantry selection and training standards will be surreptitiously reduced to ensure women succeed.

At the end of this process, government ministers will be happy, the generals involved will get promotion and the nation’s feminists will claim a victory over the last bastion of male chauvinism.

But, more importantly, our nation’s defences will have been weakened.

Yet more proof, as if we needed it, that the world’s gone mad.

Party membership subscriptions have become our primary source of income since we launched our membership model earlier this year. AVfM, likewise, moved to a membership model, and Paul Elam has just published a video (3:23), his quarterly membership drive appeal – here. I’ve been making monthly donations to AVfM for the past two or three years, and I invite you to do likewise.

You can take out J4MB party membership (from £5.00 per month, 16 pence per day) here, or make a one-off donation here.

Thank you for your support of both AVfM and J4MB.

Our thanks to Ray for this. He asks in his email, ‘Is it April Fools Day, already?’

It’s just the latest in a long line of pieces about how women demand institutions adapt to their needs and wants – rather than vice versa (unlike men) – which inevitably leads to ever more inefficient and ineffective institutions, financed by long-suffering taxpayers, mostly men. Because of women’s in-group preference, the proportion of women in senior positions, and in positions of influence, can only rise, regardless of the damage they wreak on institutions (state education, the NHS, public sector bodies in general…). It’s a train with no reverse gear.

If MPs are on maternity leave – or paternity leave, for that matter – how can they be carrying out the jobs for which they’ve been elected, and for which they’re being paid by taxpayers? They can’t. So why should they be allowed to vote from home?

They also want to vote from home if they’re ‘looking after children’. How can they be be looking after children whilst working as MPs? Is this the fabled ‘multi-tasking’ of which women are deemed uniquely capable?

The last sentence in the piece:

The idea is now being considered by Sarah Childs, a professor of gender and politics at the University of Bristol, who is carrying out an independent assessment of inequalities facing men and women in parliament for the Speaker, John Bercow.

‘An independent assessment of inequalities’? What an insult to our intelligence. ‘Professor’ Sarah Childs is clearly a feminist – as expected of a ‘professor’ of gender and politics – and her university profile is here. An extract:

My research centres on the relationships between sex, gender and politics. It is concerned, both theoretically and empirically, with questions of women’s descriptive, symbolic and substantive representation. I have published extensively on women’s political representation in the UK since 1997…

You get the drift, I won’t inflict any more on you. Now, what will be the outcome of a feminist’s ‘independent assessment’ on whether women should be offered an easy option, rarely available to men? You don’t need to be a ‘professor’ to guess that, do you?

Our thanks to Kevin for this.

Cameron’s compulsion to drive or support feminist agendas is so strong, he’s won our ‘Toady of the Year’ award for the last four years – here.

Cameron plans to unnecessarily put women in harm’s way, although you can be sure the female soldiers won’t be put on the riskiest missions, although they’ll be earning the same money as their male colleagues.  The combat readiness of the Armed Forces will be compromised. This will lower the likelihood of missions being successful, and put at risk the lives of the men who will seek to rescue female colleagues in extremely dangerous circumstances, under which the same men might not seek to rescue male colleagues. As always, feminist ideology trumps common sense.

This insane decision – a denial of innate biological differences between men and women – follows British nuclear submarines being modified at a cost of £5 million apiece to accommodate female submariners. Doubtless there will be underwater Immaculate Conceptions which will force the submarines to deviate from their journey plans, to put the pregnant sailors ashore, from whence they’ll be flown back to the UK, at yet more taxpayer expense.