Our thanks to Chloe for pointing us to a short and rather superficial piece in a Spectator blog. I’ve added a few comments to a number already there, and invite you to do likewise. At long last the magazine is showing signs of waking up to the reality of gender politics. 30+ years later than it should have – it still features occasional pieces by e.g. Harriet Harman and Julie Burchill – but better late than never.

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.

Along with a number of J4MB supporters I was in the public gallery of the main chamber of the House of Commons this afternoon, to hear Philip Davies’s debate on International Men’s Day. Philip was on fine form, as always. Pleasingly, J4MB and ICMI16 were mentioned a number of times by feminist MPs, in a desperate and utterly futile attempt to discredit Philip. I’ll be saying more about the debate in the next day or two. In the meantime, for sheer entertainment value, I offer you a silly piece by Martha Gill, Political Reporter for HuffPo UK. They obviously can’t get the staff…

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.

From the About us page of the Men & Boys Coalition (henceforth MBC):

We will, where possible, assist members of the media to find relevant facts and research or signpost them towards professional experts on gender issues affecting men and boys…

The Coalition will not:

• Provide and promote solutions to individual issues affecting men and boys, that is the remit of the individual organisations and leaders themselves…

This simply begs a question, of course:

How well qualified is the collection of organizations and individuals within MBC, to ‘provide and promote solutions to individual issues affecting men and boys’?

In our 2015 general election manifesto we explored 20 areas in which the human rights of men and boys in the UK are assaulted by the actions and/or inactions of the state. I’ve put in bold text below, the issues where one or more of the 23 member organizations would appear to have some expertise – even if, as with CALM, the ‘expertise’ is delivered by a feminist-run organization. The first three issues affect females too:

Abortion

Foetal alcohol syndrome

Fatherlessness

Male circumcision

Education

Employment

Access to children

Domestic violence                                           

Sexual abuse

Armed Forces veterans’ health issues

Homelessness

Suicide

Criminal justice system

Paternity fraud

Anonymity for suspected sexual offenders

Divorce

Health

Political representation

Company director appointments

Retirement years expectation

By my estimation, then, out of 20 men’s and boys’ issues, MBC member organizations can claim expertise on only six issues. The obvious counter is that individual members – there are 26 of them, most of whom I’d never heard of, before yesterday – can claim expertise in some of the 14 remaining issues.

I’m about to email MBC (info@menandboyscoalition.org.uk) a link to this blog piece, and ask them to identify which organizations and/or individuals they consider qualified to ‘provide and promote solutions to individual issues affecting men and boys’ in the remaining 14 areas. J4MB is qualified to provide solutions in all 20 areas. After all, we did so in our manifesto, which was published in December 2014, almost two years ago.

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 a supporter for capturing this (49:39), originally broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland on 17 October.

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.

An interesting video (7:57) by Paul Elam, concerning the poor response from Canadian academics to Janice Fiamengo’s call for support for Professor Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto). Paul starts on this sentence at 4:04:

I can tell you from lengthy personal experience dealing with academicians as an activist, they are, by and large, cowards.

My own experience has been identical.

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.

We covered the issue of paternity fraud in our 2015 general election manifesto (pp. 52-4). Our thanks to Nick for pointing us to a remarkable case of paternity fraud, described in a lengthy article in the Daily Mail. Extracts:

For two years, this room in Jonathan’s five-bedroom semi-detached house in Surrey has been a shrine to an 11-year-old boy named Timothy — a boy he believed to be his much-loved biological son, having been callously duped by his former wife.

So angry and distraught was Jonathan, a university lecturer, when he discovered her deceit that last year he took her to court, where a judge ordered she pay him £40,000 in compensation for his distress, humiliation and the maintenance he had paid.

A hollow victory when weighed against the agonising loss of a child who Jonathan has, without hope of recourse to the legal system, been prevented from seeing for over two years by his ex…

Sadly, no contact order was awarded by the family court, which decreed, at a hearing in March 2013, that Jonathan could send a card to Timothy once a month, in the vain hope they would be passed on. Adding insult to injury, the judge advised him not to appeal the decision.

‘It was a devastating outcome and every time I thought about what it meant in the days and weeks that followed, I broke down in tears,’ recalls Jonathan. ‘I’d grown to love this boy just as I did my older children, and the results of a blood test made no difference to those feelings whatsoever.

‘But even putting my emotions to one side, how could the court believe it was in Timothy’s interests to have the man he’d always known as “Daddy” erased from his life?’…

Jonathan stopped his maintenance payments following the DNA results. Although the loss of £80,000 in child support was the least distressing part of the whole sorry affair, when a solicitor told him he could sue for parental fraud, he decided that might make him feel a little less used by his ex.

Additionally, he hoped it would deter other women from committing similar deceptions.

At the Central London County Court in March last year, as well as his substantial legal costs, believed to be over £50,000 Jonathan was reportedly awarded £40,000 in damages, half the amount he had paid in maintenance.

Judge Deborah Taylor told the hearing that Annette was guilty of ‘deliberate fraudulent misrepresentation’, but stopped short of ruling that all the maintenance should be repaid as Jonathan had experienced the benefit of having Timothy in his life.

He has spent the past year writing a book, detailing the full story, which he hopes Timothy, now 11, will one day read, to counter-balance any negativity he may have heard from his mother.

The (Kindle) book is available to buy (for £2.98) here.

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 Sean for this (video, 13:42).

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 Jim for emailing this:

Mike,

Family Magazine Sponsored by Family-Destroying Divorce Lawyers

If you need further evidence that feminists are trying to remove men from families Angelina Jolie-style, then see the attached magazine currently distributed on racks located in the lobbies of London Borough of Bromley Council leisure centres.

On the front cover is the title: “Family Grapevine – Essential Information for families with children 0-18 years.” Sounds pro-family and wholesome, right?

Surprise! It’s a feminist Trojan Horse that wants to destroy your family. On the back cover is a full page advert for dynamic duo divorce lawyers Siobhan O’Donnell and Caroline O’Donnell at ambulance-chasing law firm Dillon Law LLP. Their advert offers a powerful selection of weapons available to women to remove men from their houses and their children, including making allegations of domestic violence. Mediation is not on the list.

On page four they include a more detailed advertorial on their services for making a Non-Molestation Order. It’s useful to know that the order can be very widely drafted, including no contact whatsoever with “the victim,” forbidding the man from attending the home, and best of all they can apply to the Court without providing notice to “the perpetrator.” They helpfully explain that domestic violence (thanks to Theresa May’s expanded domestic abuse laws that she drove through whilst at the Home Office) are now so subjective that they can be whatever you want them to be, including emotional, psychological and financial abuse.

Yes, that means that whilst you are away from the house working to provide for your family, Siobhan O’Donnell at Dillon Law LLP is happy to help your wife initiate divorce proceedings and make an allegation of domestic violence against you so that she can get an injunction order from a judge without you even knowing about it that will block you from going back to your house, contacting your wife or contacting your children.

Angelina Jolie would be in heaven. This is what feminist Britain has come to. Family magazines, distributed at council-government leisure centres, advertising filing for divorce and making domestic violence allegations. Divorce solicitors will always be with us, but this is a new low. The domestic violence industry that makes its money by destroying men and families, empowered by the new and expanded laws that feminist Theresa May drove through during her tenure at the Home Office, is now so lucrative that even family magazines cannot refuse their money.

It’s all fun and games until it happens to you or Brad Pitt.

Regards,

Jim

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 Claire for pointing us to this. It relates to the first report from the Coalition of Men & Boys, in 2009. The feminist-compliant nature of the organization is quickly apparent (obviously feminist organizations highlighted in bold text):

Who are COMAB?

The Coalition on Men and Boys is a new UK organisation that aims to:

• explore the problems that men and boys face and the problems they create
• harness the huge potential that men and boys have to contribute to the well-being of society.
• identify how policy and practice – in relation to issues such as work, fatherhood, education, health, and violence – can engage more effectively with men and boys in the UK.

Current members are Action for Children, Bradford University’s Research Unit on Men and Masculinities, the Fatherhood Institute, the Men’s Health Forum, Relate, Respect (the national association for domestic violence perpetrator programmes), and the White Ribbon Campaign.

COMAB must have sunk without trace some time ago, I hadn’t previously heard of them. We can expect the Men and Boys Coalition to sink without trace too, given its feminist ideological orientation. A virtual ‘coalition’ with nobody admitting to leadership, built on sand.

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.

This morning I received an email alerting me to the launch of the Men and Boys Coalition. We are informed:

The Men and Boys Coalition is an informal but cohesive and mutually supportive network of responsible groups, [as opposed to ‘irresponsible groups’?] organisations, academics, journalists, commentators and leaders who are committed to taking action on the gender-specific issues that affect men and boys.

Wow. The ‘coalition’ is ‘an informal but cohesive and mutually supportive network…’ on the day of its launch. Impressive progress, or fatuous hyperbole? You can be the judge.

So, who is behind the ‘coalition’? Nobody is claiming leadership – what does that tell you? – but the ideological direction is clear from many of the organizations and individual members. They include feminist bloggers such as Ally Fogg and Glen Poole, and radical feminists including Jane Powell (CALM Initiative) and Jenny Garrett. From Garrett’s website:

Jenny’s mission is to transform the world for everyone, one empowered woman at a time. She use’s (sic) her years of experience in coaching and leadership to inspire and motivate people, working with them to deliver career and life changing results beyond expectation.

Women’s Coach of the Year 2014, APCTC award winner Jenny is a sought after executive coach and trainer, author of Rocking Your Role, the how to guide to success for female breadwinners, speaker, founder of Reflexion Associates leadership consultancy and Co-Founder of Rocking Ur Teens CIC.

Jenny mentors women entrepreneurs and executives internationally for the Cherie Blair Foundation and was a finalist for the PRECIOUS Mentor of the Year 2012. She is a selected Sage Business Expert.

The ‘coalition’ considers Garrett a qualified commentator on issues affecting men and boys. On International Women’s Day this year, I debated with her on Sky News – here (video, 14:49).

There are some people I admire among the members, but I regret they’ve been persuaded to join a virtual organization that is clearly going to hide the truth about the state’s assaults on the human rights of men and boys – through its actions and inactions – and the roles played by feminists in those assaults, to advantage women and girls. People wishing to understand those issues can read our 2015 general election manifesto.

Ally Fogg has penned a predictably dire blog piece on the ‘coalition’.

We believe this ‘coalition’, far from being the British men’s sector’s ‘coming of age’ – Ally Fogg’s absurd claim – is on the wrong side of history. Ever more men and women are recognizing that most of of the major problems facing men and boys as a class are the inevitable and natural consequence of the advantaging of women and girls, relentlessly driven by state-embedded feminists, funded in the main by male taxpayers.

This ‘coalition’ will never be a part of the solution, but it could become part of the problem. That’s why J4MB cannot support it.

One last thing. So far as I can see, the ‘coalition’ isn’t calling for an end to (illegal) Male Genital Mutilation. Couldn’t they at least have managed to include that?

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.