Our thanks to K for loading this (video, 9:14) onto our YouTube library. We recommend you read the brief description below the video before watching it.

Later today we’ll be presenting Professor Marianne Hester with this month’s ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award in recognition of her contribution to this episode of Woman Sour.

An excellent piece by HEqual, first published in March 2015, showing the anti-male bias of female Lib Dem MPs with respect to an Early Day Motion on shared parenting. Not one of them signed the motion. Happily and perhaps significantly, none of them were re-elected at the 2015 general election.

Sexist, racist, heterophobic, anti-meritocratic. The purpose of this nonsense is obvious, to introduce all-women shortlists, as employed by Labour, which has resulted in blithering idiots such as Jess Phillips becoming MPs. The other suggestions (gay, disabled, ethnic minority…) will inevitably fall by the wayside.

Our thanks to Tim for this cartoon (video, 4:37) by Gary Orsum, an Australian.

In response to requests for the full catalogue of Professor Janice Fiamengo’s The Fiamengo File, ably produced by Steve Brule, I’m pleased to report all 28 episodes to date are readily accessible on Steve’s YouTube Channel, StudioBrule. They can be found by clicking on two tabs:

The Fiamengo File – Season 1 (a trailer and episodes 1-20)

The Fiamengo File – Season 2 (episodes 21-28, more to come)

Enjoy.

Peter Cheese is the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (CIPD). Three months ago he won one of our Toady awards – here. The capitulation of CIPD to feminist narratives in recent years has been appalling, and nowhere more so than in the area of the ‘gender pay gap’.

Our thanks to Chloe for this. An extract:

Dianah Worman, diversity adviser for CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development, comments: “The survey findings demonstrate the need for employers to act expeditiously to be able to deliver what will be expected of them, or risk damaging their public reputations as progressive employers of female talent and undermine their competitiveness in attracting and retaining it…

“We welcome the additional focus on publishing information on the bonus gap and quartile salary bands which will give more detailed insights to employers on where and how pronounced gender pay differentials exist and what needs to be done to address them…

“To stimulate employers to act willingly, it is vital to raise awareness about the reasons why addressing the gender pay gap makes good business sense and the good practice that can be adopted to put things right.

Hmm. Why might it be necessary to ‘stimulate employers to act willingly’? For the same reason the Davies Report (2011) felt it necessary to threaten gender quotas for FTSE100 boards in 2015 if the companies didn’t ‘voluntarily’ reach 25% female representation on their boards by then (which the spineless companies duly did). It’s more of the same old, same old… feminist manipulations of deferential men, regardless of the consequences.

Another extract:

The most commonly cited ways in which organisations have tried to improve equal opportunities in the last two years are:

• improving the range of flexible working opportunities available to staff (26% all employers; 34% large employers

• developing more inclusive recruitment practices (16% all employers; 21% large employers

• through greater use of mentoring in the last two years to help women progress into the most senior levels in the business (13% all employers; 19% large employers

• improving the childcare package they offer staff (10% all employers; 14% of large employers)

These amount to nothing less than special treatment for women, at the cost of the efficiency and effectiveness of employing organizations. I’d like to pick up on ‘greater use of mentoring’. When I started work in the private sector in 1979, as a graduate trainee with Beecham, the term ‘mentoring’ was unknown. It’s shorthand for experienced people transferring their hard-won knowledge and experience to others, meaning the latter don’t have to put in the time and effort expended by the former. We can replace ‘experienced people’ with ‘men’, and ‘others’ by ‘women’.

In the world of work, all roads lead to Dr Catherine Hakim’s Preference Theory (2000):

Four out of seven British men are work-centred, while only one in seven British women is.

Spot on. But what’s the betting Sharapova won’t serve a lengthy ban? From the article:

Maria Sharapova “must accept responsibility” for failing a drugs test and serve her ban, according to Andy Murray.

The five-time Grand Slam winner, 28, revealed on Monday that she tested positive for meldonium in January.

“Clearly if you are taking performance-enhancing drugs and you fail a drugs test, you have to get suspended,” said Briton Murray, the world number two.

Russian Sharapova will be provisionally suspended from 12 March.

The former world number one says she has been taking the drug, which was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s banned list on 1 January, for health reasons for the past 10 years.

The bottom line? Sharapova has been taking a performance-enhancing drug for two-thirds of her professional career. From Wikipedia:

According to Forbes, she has been named highest paid female athlete in the world for 11 consecutive years and earned US$285 million including prize money since she turned pro in 2001.

Our thanks to Russell for this in – of course – The Guardian. Could there be any better evidence of the nasty, anti-meritocratic, totalitarian streak that runs through feminists? Kamila Shamsie calls her piece a ‘provocation’, which reminds me of children who say something nasty to other children and then, seeing the distress caused, say, ‘I was only joking!’

One paragraph alone should give you a flavour of the piece:

Of course, there will be many details to work out, but the basic premise of my “provocation” is that none of the new titles published in that year should be written by men. I’ve been considering literary fiction so far but other groups within fiction – and non-fiction – publishing could gain from signing up too. The knock-on effect of a Year of Publishing Women would be evident in review pages and blogs, in bookshop windows and front-of-store displays, in literature festival lineups, in prize submissions. We must learn from the suffragettes that it’s not always necessary or helpful to be polite about our campaigns. If some publishing houses refused to sign up, then it would be for the literary pages and booksellers and bloggers and festivals to say they wouldn’t be able to give space to the male writers who were being published that year. Many male writers would, I’m sure, back the campaign and refuse to submit their books for publication in the given year, while also taking an active part by reading, reviewing and recommending the books that were published.

The latest excellent episode (video, 11:30) of The Fiamengo File. The good professor will be giving a talk titled, ‘How Feminism is Destroying Higher Education’ at the London Conference. You can order your ticket here.

Our thanks to David for this. You’ll never guess the gender of the three victims of domestic violence, or the perpetrators…