Excellent (16:35). At around the 10-minute mark Janice turns to comparing academics’ capitulation to feminism in the modern era, with their capitulation to Nazism in Germany in the 1930s.

Two or three days ago we posted a link to the fundraiser to help Janice meet her legal costs at a ‘human rights tribunal’. It’s already reached USD11,800. We put in $100 with the agreement of our largest donor – taking the sum out of his monthly donation – and were impressed to note he’d added another $100. I know many other J4MB supporters have also made generous donations, and I should like to thank them all.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Tom for this.

For some time it’s been reliably clear that any woman who describes herself as a ‘comedian’ won’t be funny, and will probably survive financially in small or large measure on money extracted from taxpayers or licence fee payers (Kate Smurfwit and the BBC come to mind).

At least with ‘comediennes’ there’s a chance they might be funny e.g. Katherine Ryan, a Canadian. Now her Wikipedai page describes her as a comedian, but we’d like to think that was the result of editing by a hatchet-faced feminist who chews on a thick slice of lemon first thing every morning, to set her expression for the day. Katherine’s own website is a delight – a masterpiece of comic writing, with a quotation of just six words.

If you feel in need of some light relief after reading the piece – or instead of reading it – we recommend this (video, 4:45) by Jim Jefferies, one of our favourite Australian comedians. It contains the immortal line:

That’s why gay guys are happy, and lesbians are f***ing miserable.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Tom for this. The piece was written by a smug male columnist, a former ‘student socialist’. An extract:

Personally, I’m not really into the whole men’s rights thing. [That’s it, ignore men’s rights, they’ll go away. Oops, they already have, and you’re too stupid to have noticed.]

Most “advocates” strike me as a little bit sad and a little bit obsessive. [I imagine the same could have been said about “advocates” for an end to slavery, improved rights for black people in the US, an end to apartheid in South Africa…]

A few are just plain creepy. [This is journalism of the lowest order. Would he not be more at home at the Australian edition of The Guardian?]

Still, from what I gleaned in the trailer — which of course I also never would have seen had the film not been banned — they didn’t seem like towering tyrants of patriarchal oppression.

Maybe that’s what upset the censors so much. [Such an absurd comment could only have been made by an ignorant person who hasn’t seen the film. What upset the feminist censors so much was that the film was made by a former feminist who stopped being a feminist when she engaged with men’s rights advocates, and realised that what they had to say about gender matters was demonstrably true, and compelling – and that feminist narratives are all a tissue of lies.]

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Interesting.

A link between feminism and increasing drunkenness and mental health problems among women is obvious, when you think about it. Deep down, the majority of women don’t want to become more like men, and the majority of men don’t want to become more like women. The state is run in complete denial of these realities. But biology will triumph again, when the current order collapses under thr weight of its ridiculous assumptions.

An excellent piece (video, 13:11) from Paul Elam.

Movember starts next Tuesday, our thanks to Nigel for this.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Ally Fogg, a feminist commentator on gender matters, published a piece on this matter today. He makes a few good points – that makes a change – but then descends into predictable feminist ideology. The second sentence:

Philip Davies (yes, him again, I know) [My emphasis. Fogg is sneering at one of only two MPs among 650 – both Conservatives – who ever speak up for the human rights of men and boys. The other is Karl McCartney (C, Lincoln)] placed a question to the Women and Equalities ministerial team, asking how the government planned to mark International Men’s Day this year.

For sheer idiocy, this takes some beating:

Here’s the thing about men. As a gender (relatively speaking and globally) we have a lot of power. We have a lot of platforms. We often have loud voices. But as every mental health professional will tell you, as every doctor will tell you, as more than a few wives and girlfriends will tell you, one thing men tend to be absolutely terrible at is speaking about our own problems, admitting to our own vulnerabilities, confessing our own weaknesses. This is true of men as individuals and it is equally true of men as a gender.

It’s the tired old ‘men should be more like women, and talk about their problems’ argument, and as always, nothing is said about reactive depression, where ‘talking about problems’ will do nothing about (for example) being denied access to children or grandchildren, MGM, or countless other issues. Indeed, talking about problems will only open wounds that may be best left closed. Stoicism is a fine masculine quality, and without it, the male:female suicide rate differential would be a damned sight higher than the current 5:1.

Our thanks to John for this, a link to the commentary on the exchanges in the House of Commons (scroll down to 10:27 if you want to see the original):

Conservative MP Philip Davies asks what plans there are to commemorate International Men’s Day.

“Some women might be forgiven for thinking every day is international men’s day,” replies minister Caroline Dinenage, but says the day, which falls on 19 November, will focus on “the very important issue of male suicide” – which Mr Davies also highlights.

The minister adds that it is up to backbenchers to “bid for parliamentary time” to hold a debate to mark the day – as they do to mark International Women’s Day.

Mr Davies says the prime minister takes the matter seriously and alleges that the department does not.

Ms Dinenage says the role of the department is to “tackle inequality wherever we find it”.

Labour MP Christian Matheson says that International Men’s Day could allow “fathers of daughters to express concerns, such as why those daughters might have to wait another 30 years for equal pay” and over violence against women and girls.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Good news. Donations have already taken the fundraiser past the halfway mark (final target $7,300).

Our thanks to Mike P for this.

Professor Janice Fiamengo’s talk at the London conference was one of the most eagerly awaited of the 20 talks, and as always, she didn’t disappoint. A video (45:06) is here.

She is facing what appear to be vexatious charges in front of a Human Rights Tribunal (!) in conection with her handling of a female student at the University of Ottawa. She will need to fund her legal support, and Steve Brule has posted a video (3:25) with a link to the crowdfunder. In just a few hours, 120+ backers have donated over $7,500.

We urge you to donate what you can. Janice is one of the most important anti-feminists in the world today, all the more remarkable because she’s an academic, and this is her hour of need. Please give generously. Thank you.