Lauren Southern is a Canadian Honey badger, a second-year political sciences student at the University of the Fraser Valley.

She first came to public attention a few years ago, by holding a placard stating:

I am not a feminist, because I believe in equality, not entitlements and supremacy.

In April 2015 Rebel Media posted a video (3:46) of Lauren, titled, ‘Why I am not a feminist’. She’s a courageous young woman, as we can see from an Independent article on a Slut Walk rally in Vancouver, in the course of which she held up a placard behind a feminist speaker:

The article has a link to a video of Lauren. Both the article and the video are well worth catching.

Our thanks to Paul for alerting us to this.

Baroness Deech was formerly the Principal of St Anne’s College, Oxford. Oxford University has for many years been a hotbed of radical feminism, with academics and students afraid to speak out publicly against bullying men-hating ideologues.

We plan to meet up with some of those academics and students later this month. Feminism needs to be openly and vigorously challenged in Oxford University, as in all British universities, and we intend to be a catalyst in that overdue response.

Our thanks to Sean for this. Maria Miller, a Conservative MP, wants passports and driving licences to be ‘de-gendered’ because they cause ‘problems’ for transgendered people. It has been estimated that around one in 10,000 men, and one in 30,000 women, are transgendered. Miller’s proposal is to alter important ID documentation in order to reduce a ‘problem’ not experienced by 9,999 out of every 10,000 men, and 29,999 out of every 30,000 women. That makes sense.

WARNING: Don’t watch these two videos, if you’re offended by strong language.

A tip of the hat to RobotThorium for this (video, 13:19). It contains substantial content from an increasingly agitated Sargon of Akkad – hopefully he had his blood pressure pills to hand – and somewhat less from Bill Burr, an American comedian. One of our favourite Bill Burr video clips (7:31) is ‘There is NO reason to hit a woman???’.

I’m a big fan of Wiki, and barely a day goes by during which I don’t consult the site on some matter. But when it comes to gender political matters, the site is highly inaccurate, due to the dire influence of feminist editors. My thanks to T for pointing me to a piece in which feminists describe and gloat about their manipulations of the site. It’s titled, ‘Chipping away at Wikipedia’s gender bias, one article at a time’.

Many Wiki pieces – including those on subjects without an obvious gender political angle, to normal people (i.e. non-feminists and anti-feminists) – have content starting with things like, ‘Feminist scholars say that…’, rather than the altogether more accurate, ‘Taxpayer-funded men-hating lying women say that…’.

Our own Wiki page is here, and I note it’s been edited recently, with a more critical tone. An excerpt:

In its election manifesto, the party identifies twenty areas in which it says that the rights of men and boys are being violated.[9] The manifesto received criticism after being revealed as quoting extensivley (sic) from Wikipedia and The Daily Mail and anti-women blogs such as “Judgybitch.com”[14]

Reference [9] leads not to our manifesto – although it would have taken only moments to include a link – but, surprisingly and pleasingly, to the ITV interview of Caroline Criado-Perez and myself, for which she received her third ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award. I assume the link will disappear shortly.

Reference (14) leads not to Janet Bloomfield’s outstanding blog – which could appear ‘anti-women’ only to deranged feminists – but to an article on J4MB.

The paperback edition of my last book Feminism: The Ugly Truth – first published in an e-book edition – has been delayed slightly, and I now expect it to be available to order from 15 January. The paperback edition will vary little from the e-book edition, although there are updates in a few areas, and a new first chapter, ‘Feminists are liars’.

At the request of David Power, who’s funded the paperback edition, I’ve kept the front cover design unchanged. The overall cover design is here. I’m looking forward to seeing the reactions of fellow travellers on public transport.

The prices for the book in some key markets are as follows:

£10.00
US$15.00 (the book is currently mispriced on Amazon.com at US$21.91)
Euro 14.00
AUS$20.00

Our thank to John for pointing us to this.

I posted three or four comments in response to the original piece, here. Only the first, on the issue of fathers’ access to children after family breakdowns, was published. Three subsequent comments – challenging other commenters’ claims that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women – were never published, and were discarded by the Moderator. My last comment was in response to comments by ‘Thistle’, she ended with this:

It’s not a shame the campaign focuses on female victims of male violence, it’s a shame that it’s the case 90% of the time.

My rejected comment was this:

90% of female victims of domestic violence are women? Nonsense. For years the British Crime Survey has been reporting that around 40% of victims are male, and that’s surely an under-estimate because men are far less likely to recognise themselves as victims, and accordingly less likely to report it, even in a survey. It’s likely the majority of victims are male. If you add in male suicides occasioned by domestic violence, more men than women die as a result of it.

A huge number of studies over decades have shown that women are at least as physically aggressive as men towards opposite-sex intimate partners. There’s plenty of support available for female victims and their children, virtually nothing for male victims and their children.

It’s long been known that the highest rates of violence happens in lesbian couples. How do you explain that, with your ‘men are violent, women aren’t’ angle?

I invite you to learn the truth about DV – not the feminist lies – by clicking on the ‘Key posts’ section of my political party’s website, and scrolling down to the Domestic Violence section.

I wish and you a happy and healthy 2016.

Mike Buchanan

JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS

(and the women who love them)

You can access our ‘Key posts’ section here.

Our thanks to Jeff for this.

Last month we presented a particularly odious feminist, Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England, our Toxic Feminist of the Month award, for ridiculous comments she made about overweight women.

The Daily Mail published this today. The start of the article:

Britons will be told to slash their drinking next week under the biggest shake-up of alcohol guidelines in 30 years. Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies will urge the public to take at least two – possibly even three – days off a week to give their livers a rest.

She is also expected to lower the limit for men on the days that they do drink to three units – equivalent to one and a half pints of beer – bringing it in line with the advised maximum for women.

Experts say it makes no sense having separate male and female guidelines when people react differently to alcohol regardless of their sex.

The element I wish to draw to your attention is a problem that has troubled feminists for some time, and Ms Davies has ‘sorted’ it in the manner we predicted some months ago.

Current government advice – as published on a NHS website, here – is that men should drink no more than 3-4 units of alcohol per day, while women should drink no more than 2-3 units.

The overlap at 3 units is there purely to satisfy feminists, and has nothing to do with men’s and women’s gender-typical responses to alcohol intake. The Drink Aware website explains why there have historically been different guidelines for men and women:

Women are advised to drink less because, in general, their bodies can’t process alcohol as well as men’s. There are a few reasons for this:

• The average woman weighs less than the average man. This means she has less tissue to absorb alcohol.

• Women have a higher ratio of fat to water than men and so they’re less able to dilute alcohol within the body. It’s why women will tend to have a higher concentration of alcohol in their blood than men after drinking the same amount.

• Alcohol stays in a women’s system longer before being metabolised (processed) than it does in a man’s. This is because women generally have lower levels of alcohol dehydrogenase (AHD) the chemical that metabolises alcohol in the liver.

Let’s remind ourselves of the third article in the Mail piece:

Experts say it makes no sense having separate male and female guidelines when people react differently to alcohol regardless of their sex.

This is clearly nonsense, which you’d reliably expect from anything that originates from a public body, starting with ‘Experts say…’. It’s rather like denying women are on average shorter than men, because some women are taller than the average man. At the very least, it makes a mockery of the notion of having general guidelines in this area. Guidelines should surely reflect individuals’ sizes, and other relevant factors.

Ms Davies obviously couldn’t raise the guidelines for women’s alcohol consumption to match those for men, so she’s going to do what we predicted, reducing the guidelines for men’s alcohol consumption to match those for women.

Yet another pathetic feminist ‘triumph’ in the war against men. I doubt anyone in the mainstream media will pick up on the gendered point I’ve made, but it was good to read Tom Utley’s entertaining piece about Ms Davies’s guidelines in the same edition of the paper – here.

I’m committed to ‘Dry January’, no alcohol for the whole of the month. So far, it’s been a doddle…

Our thanks to AVfM for this. Rabbi J Abraham is proud to declare publicly that he circumcised his own sons.

William Collins published a powerful article on Male Genital Mutilation – here. Given that this latest genital mutilator is Jewish, an extract from Collins’s piece seems particularly appropriate. It takes up the remainder of this blog piece:

The real reason for MGM.

This is how Moses Maimonides, the Jewish intellectual and physician, expressed it as early as 1135:

With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally… How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from the outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is to that member? [My emphasis.]

In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.

The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

In my opinion, this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. [My emphasis.] Jewish men, sexually subdued and readily controlled by their wives, don’t stray into mischief. The power of his member has been diminished so that he has no strength to lie with many lewd women.”