Our thanks to a number of people for this piece in The Guardian. The headline is in the subject line of this piece, with the addition of the words ‘female’ and ‘male’, clearly unacceptable to the thought police at the commie rag.

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.

Giles Coren is a columnist with the Times, and to say the quality of his output is variable would be a gross under-statement. He recently argued that the female players at Wimbledon should get more prize money than the male players, based on his (alleged) personal preference for women’s tennis over men’s tennis. He didn’t have the audacity to extend the same argument to soccer or rugby.

Coren’s column in today’s edition starts with the following, which piqued my interest because of the blatant corruption of the J4MB Wikipedia page by feminists and SJWs – Philip Cross and The Vintage Feminist, most notably – about which we’ve blogged:

Have you ever noticed that everything on Wikipedia is wrong and wished there were some sort of reference website with nothing but correct facts on it? If so, then what you need is Infogalactic, a new online encyclopaedia I read about this week, founded by alt-right types in America who think Wikipedia is a “Democrat weapon” whose truths are determined “by the left-wing thought police who administer it”. [J4MB – they’re not wrong.] They have responded by building a platform, using MediaWiki software, that looks just like Wikipedia but whose information, they say, is “true, relevant and verifiable”.

This is a great idea…

You can get to the new website here. We wish it every success. The entry on J4MB is here, and is seemingly drawn from a Wikipedia page published before the 2016 London conference.

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 time to time I’m asked which Conservative MP would be my favorite to replace Theresa May, whose time as leader is limited. My first choice would of course be the redoubtable Philip Davies, but he’s always made clear his disinterest in high office.

David Davis might be next, but at 68 he’s perhaps a little too old to take on the mantle. Which leads me to that rare breed of person, an unashamedly conservative Conservative MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg (48). An extract from his Wikipedia page:

At the 1997 general election, Rees-Mogg was the Conservative candidate for the traditional Labour seat of Central Fife and attracted ridicule, after canvassing a largely working-class neighbourhood with his former nanny;[8] on election night he came third, gaining 9% of the votes cast,[14] slightly fewer than half of the votes won by the previous Conservative candidate in 1992. However, rumours that he had toured the constituency in a Bentley were described as “scurrilous” − he insisted it had been a Mercedes.[15]

In common with the hapless David Cameron, four times winner of our Toady of the Year award, JR-M is an Old Etonian, but unlike Dave he is rightly unapologetic about it. James Delingpole wrote a sterling piece on JR-M for the current Spectator edition, Let’s keep up the Moggmentum. Enjoy.

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.

Excellent (video, 26:28).

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.

Baroness Hale, nailed.

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.

A tip of the hat to Bettina for this (video, 19:14).

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.

A tip of the hat to Gary Costanza of AVfM 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.

From the BBC, a predictable propaganda piece.

We already have a feminist prime minister – David Cameron was the previous one – a feminist Home Secretary (Amber Rudd), and a feminist head of the CPS (Alison Saunders). Now the most senior judge in the land is Baroness Hale, a woman who has spent much of the last eight years wittering on about the ‘need’ for more diversity in the judiciary – in plain English, the ‘need’ for more women, regardless of merit, and the proportions of capable men and women wishing to pursue such careers. As always, the barriers to entry have been lowered to enable this direction of travel, including appointing legal academics (most of whom are female) as judges.

The biographies of the Supreme Court Justices are here. The idea that Lady Hale might objectively be the best candidate (among 11) for the position of president is laughable. A man with the same background wouldn’t have had a hope of becoming a Supreme Court Justice in the first place. From her biography:

A home maker as well as a judge, she thoroughly enjoyed helping the artists and architects create a new home for The Supreme Court.

Well, that’s nice. A feminist part-timer with an interest in interior decoration now heads the highest court in the land. What could possibly go wrong?

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.

Another excellent piece by Kathy Gyngell, published three days ago, comments now closed.

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.

With a long ‘To do’ list after being out of the country for a few days, I’m disinclined to comment at length on the feminist-engineered fiasco that is the ‘BBC gender pay gap’ – all the journalists writing about the matter appear to be women, isn’t that sexist? – but I note that 60% of the people who have moved into the £150,000+ salary band at the BBC over the past four years have been women. Nobody is claiming that individual merit played a part in that policy direction. They no longer need to do so, people have become brainwashed into believing that inequalities of outcomes reflect inequalities of opportunities.

Meanwhile Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the BBC director-general, says there is ‘more to do’ on tackling the gender pay gap. Of course Lord Hall couldn’t have become director-general of the BBC without the approval of feminist politicians and spineless male MPs – all male MPs are spineless on gender matters, with the exception of Philip Davies – but the slippery slope of gender politics always starts from the acceptance that there’s a ‘problem’ that requires a ‘solution’. And it remains generally true even today that men provide the ‘solution’, however anti-meritocratic and destructive it is.

Hall pledged to close the gender pay gap by 2020, just three years away. Doubtless he’ll do it in part by diverting money away from programme-making to pay women yet more. Increasingly poor programmes, combined with ever more repeats, will hopefully accelerate the BBC’s journey to its end as a licence fee payer funded propaganda machine.

At least one article about the BBC fiasco is worth reading, a piece by Joanna Williams, education editor of Spiked, Who cares about the BBC gender pay gap?. I note from a line at the end of the article that she’s the authoress of a book due to be published in September, Women vs Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars. Amazon is currently featuring two reviews:

“For those of us who’ve been involved in fighting for women’s liberation for years, it has been tragic to watch contemporary feminism become the enemy of freedom. Do not despair. Joanna Williams’s wonderful book not only uses erudition, philosophy and polemics to explain how on earth this betrayal has happened but more importantly it is a bravura clarion call urging women to throw off the shackles of hapless victimhood and instead take control of their destiny. I loved every word.”

– Claire Fox, Director, Institute of Ideas

“Women vs Feminism is a superb exposé of today’s victim feminism. It tells the story of how a once valiant movement for equality and freedom [J4MB: Groan. It was never that.] devolved into a male-bashing grievance-fest. This meticulously researched book will drive the gender activists crazy–and delight those who care about truth, rules of evidence, and genuine liberation.”

– Christina Hoff Sommers, Author of Who Stole Feminism?

You can pre-order the book from Amazon UK 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.