Our thanks to Emily for this. It’s a tweet from Glen Jankowski, Critical psychology lecturer at Leeds Beckett. He claims a new ‘male psychology’ section of the BPS (British Psychology Society) won’t help men or women. A taster:
If the aim of the section is to focus on bringing together men and masculinities researchers, [hopefully not, since the latter are invariably feminists] then the Section must look at what Raewyn Connell calls ‘the patriarchal dividend’. [Why must it, given that feminist patriarchy theory has no basis in reality?] That is how men as a class of people are disproportionately advantaged…
You get the drift. A tip of the hat to Belinda Brown for her response to Jankowski’s tweet.
Raewyn Connell – the lesbian feminist taxpayer-funded parasite who Jankowski imperiously asserts the BPS Men’s Section ‘must’ look to for guidance – is a 73-year-old Australian sociologist. From her website:
I have been an interested observer of masculinities all my life, but began to think of this as a researchable issue in the late 1970s. At that time, anyone interested in power structures could see that the feminist challenge to patriarchy must mean changes in the lives of men.
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.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The only way to get rid of this sort of thing is to perform an Augean stables hit on the universities. But that has to go much wider and root out the cultural Marxists. Only a right-wing ‘populist’ revolution can deliver this. It MAY happen…
LikeLike
Quote from the item;
“….the feminist challenge to the Patriarchy must mean changes in the lives of men…..”
Oh?
“Changes”?
What changes?
What unspoken horrors lurk behind that anodyne, but at one and the same time sinister and open-ended threat?
And imposed by whom and how?
No, don’t tell – let me guess.
How about corruption of the law itself, or the police making up unconstitutional new ‘laws’, all by themselves?
Closed court systems passing judgements without public knowledge and scrutiny, a circumstance that is guaranteed to produce corruption and malpractice.
Naming of accused but not accuser, even where the latter is shown to be lying.
Infiltration of the privileged national broadcaster, huge swathes of academe and assorted other institutions by feMarxists all tell their own sorry story.
Those sort of “changes”?
Do you think I’m on the right lines here?
P.S.
BTW, I seem to remember that Glen Jankowski had a big hit with “A Walk in The Black Forrest” back in the ’60s.
It was on the radio all the time.
And to be fair to him, it was really pretty good too.
Perhaps he should have just stuck with what he knew after all….
LikeLike