Enjoy (video, 11:36).

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.

On Xmas Day – we rarely take holidays, at J4MB – we posted a piece about a Norwich screening on 18 January of The Red Pill, financed by a remarkable and generous man who lives there, Barry Wright. He was prepared not only to underwrite the cost of screening the film – tickets were free – but also to pay for travel and hotel accommodation for a number of the people who’ll be on the Q&A panel after the film, including Cassie Jaye, Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey and myself. (We’re still not sure if Dr RandomerCam will be attending.)

Such was the level of interest in the screening, that a second screening was laid on, for the following evening. Tickets are no longer available for either screening. I salute Barry for a remarkable achievement, and look forward to attending both screenings.

Soon after announcing the first screening, Barry announced a £7,500 fundraiser which, even if it hits the target, will not cover his costs. Yesterday evening it reached £700. I would strongly urge you to make a donation, if you can, even if it’s only for a small amount. What Barry has done here is remarkable, and it deserves the appreciation of all with an interest in men’s and boys’ human rights. Thank you.

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 @CaptHaddock83

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 HEqual 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.

An interesting new piece in Backbencher.

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.

I can’t recall when I last read a blog post as impressive as this, published on the ExInjuria website. There are references to our position on abortion, as outlined in our 2015 general election manifesto (pp.5,6), along with some insightful comments on them. But there’s so much more than that, and altogether it’s a remarkable article. In a moment I’ll add it to our Key posts section.

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 Nick for pointing us to this. It’s a piece written by Lucy Reed, a Family Law barrister for over a decade, and it appears on her website, ‘Pink Tape’.

The piece concerns the issue of whether or not to allow people (men, almost always) to cross-examine their partners on such issues as alleged domestic violence. It’s a lengthy piece, but well worth reading. The start:

There was an important debate in Parliament today. The government was put on the spot about the scandalous cross examination of victims of rape by the perpetrators of such abuse. It is a shame that the video footage of the house shows so many MPs making a break for the cafe just as it started.

That this issue is being tackled (or is about to be tackled) is a good thing. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for people to wake up to it. But I have to say that the framing and depth of the debate about this really important issue leaves something to be desired. And it does not give me great confidence that the solution will necessarily resolve the real issue.

There is some real flabbiness of definition here : There is (still) no delineation between complainant and victim, accused and perpetrator, alleged abuser / rapist and actual abuser / rapist. This should not be too hard to grasp. The presumption of innocence should not be a novel concept for our elected representatives to grasp.

Many, maybe most, of the (mainly) men accused of domestic abuse are responsible for some level of bad behaviour. Some will be guilty as charged by their ex. In other cases there is a much exaggerated grain of truth at the heart of a schedule of allegations. And some, we cannot say how many, will be innocent.

But in this really important debate about how we do justice in the family courts, this debate that has had the attention of Parliament as it rightly should – we have forgotten those victims. The victims of false or grossly exaggerated charges made wilfully or through confabulation. Maybe it’s easier to see things from only one perspective, but this isn’t about what’s easier. How can we talk about justice if we can only talk about justice for one party?

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 Mike P for this, in the Daily Mail. A link to the Women and Equalities Committee web page on this matter is here. The committee’s report summary is here, the report’s conclusions and recommendations here, the full report here.

The start of the Daily Mail piece’s headline, ‘Will parties be fined for lack of female MPs?’, betrays ideological sympathy with the ridiculous Maria Miller MP, the chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee, and other feminists on the committee (i.e. all members other than the newly-appointed Philip Davies MP).

There is no lack of female MPs. It has long been known that the vast majority of people applying to be prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) are men. When I worked as a consultant for the Conservatives (2006-8) 90% of applicant were men. There is no question that women are over-represented as MPs compared with the proportion of applicants who are women. This has nothing to do with gender equality, and everything to do with privileging of women to give them well-paid high-profile jobs, regardless of merit.

Excerpts from the article:

The report also calls for an extension of the law on all-women shortlists to guarantee the selection of more female candidates…

Tory Party chairman Patrick McLoughlin told the committee that all-women shortlists caused ‘resentment’ and would not be adopted…

The committee says its ultimate goal is to achieve 50 per cent female MPs. But it says a legal target of 45 per cent is ‘reasonable’.

It also calls for an extension of all-women shortlist legislation, which is currently due to expire in 2030, and which does not cover new elected roles, such as police and crime commissioners.

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.

Give me strength. The headline on Heatstreet is, ‘First British Transgender Man Soon to Give Birth Thanks to Facebook Sperm Donor’. The child’s mother will in due course become his (or her) father.

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.

The media has been full of reports that Theresa May plans a major investment in mental health services for children, to deal with rising levels of depression, anxiety, eating disorders etc. At no time has this leader of the Conservative party – a party which has been ‘conservative’ in name only, for many years – shown any enthusiasm for tackling what is surely the source of many of those unfortunate children’s mental health problems, the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the lack of fathers in children’s lives, due to the actions and inactions of malicious mothers, with state support.

So I was delighted to read an insightful and heartfelt piece by Laura Perrins, published today. It’s already attracted 91 comments, and received a well-deserved five star rating.

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.