Tonight the BBC broadcast the final of a series of University Challenge, in which ‘distinguished alumni’ of a number of universities were members of teams representing those universities. Being the BBC, the ‘distinguished alumni’ included prominent feminists who any person with an IQ in at least double digits would regard as blithering idiots. Needless to say, they appear very regularly on BBC TV and radio, where they are treated with reverence.
Two days ago we published a piece about one of the semi-finals, in which Special Snowflake (aka Laura Bates) performed so woefully that had she been replaced by a pot plant, her team would not have scored fewer points.
Tonight the BBC broadcast the final, with Sophie ‘Doughnuts’ Walker, leader of the Wimmin’s Equality Party, captaining the team from Reading. Three of her four team members, including herself, were token women. One of them, Pippa Greenwood, didn’t attempt to answer even one question. Katy Brand, a comedienne, ably and humorously captained the team representing Keble College, Oxford. Two of her team members were token women.
Katy Brand’s team, which had beaten Laura Bates’s team in the semi-final, beat Sophie Walker’s team by 240 points to nil. Had every member of Walker’s team been replaced by pot plants, the team would not have scored fewer points. At least the plants wouldn’t have answered any questions incorrectly. The programme is on BBC iPlayer for the next 30 days – here – you’ll need a BBC licence to watch it.
We’ve produced a detailed analysis of the programme – here. It turns out this blog’s software cannot link to Excel files, but if anyone wants the original Excel file, please contact us (info@j4mb.org.uk). The link we’ve provided is to a PDF, and possibly rather confusing, as it breaks up the Excel spreadsheet into individual pages.
So, how many points did the individual members of Katy Brand’s team score?
Frank Cottrell-Boyce: 140
Paul Johnson: 45
Katie Brand: 30
Anne-Marie Imafidon: 15
Unclear who answered the question correctly: 10
Frank Cottrell-Boyce scored more than 3x that of all five female contestants combined, while Paul Johnson equalled their points.
Of the 15 points scored by Anne-Marie Imafidon, 10 points were for identifying Nigeria as the country in which a number of cities are located. Paxman starts reading out the question at 7:04. Imafidon’s father emigrated from Nigeria, and she appeared sheepish in answering the question – her expression read, ‘Thanks for the gift, Jeremy!’ – and the chance of any other contestants knowing the answer to the question was surely very low. Without that ‘gift’ to her, both of the men on Katy Brand’s team would have earned more points than all five female contestants combined.
While the winning team was gender-balanced, the men scored at least 77 per cent of the team’s points. Frank Cottrell-Boyce alone scored at least 58 per cent of them.
We can be sure what the response of feminists will be to all this:
Women are strong!
Women are amazing!!
Women can do anything men can do!!!
We need a minimum quota for female contestants on quiz shows.
Justice for Men & Boys 
The reason for insisting on more women in everything is not just what I shall call ‘whiney resentment’ feminism, bad enough though that surely is.
More important – and more hidden – is the political purpose of damaging the free societies of ‘The West’ by damaging it’s most important leading members – Men.
Those societies cannot be brought down and replaced while they are still functioning properly, so the answer is to Stop them functioning properly by introducing social, political, and legal conflict and schism.
This is what Economic Marxism FAILED to do when it attempted to set the proletariat, or ‘Workers’ as a class, against the ‘Capitalists’, as a class.
So it set about identifying another divisional ‘class’ that could be worked up into a group conflict.
And since nearly everyone IS either a Man OR a woman what better than a manufactured conflict along those lines?
Enter Cultural Marxism.
This is actually a real war that is going on right now as we speak, but one without guns, planes, tanks etc. and most people don’t even realise it.
Which is why feminism is so accurately described as ‘Cancer’…
LikeLike
These women are only brilliant in the pages of The Guardian and other such media where they are allowed to say whatever they want and nobody is allowed to point out their ludicrous arguments, soap bubble logic, and obvious lies.
LikeLike
So the real comedians lost?
LikeLike
Brilliant analysis and research, though it’s so thorough that it does miss a wider point. This is yet another example of the BBC promoting feminists and WEP in particular and giving them free advertising and styfmotef legitimacy. They’ve put Sandi Toksvig on Question Time before effectively and their representative even though they have less votes than the Monster Raving Loony Party and thus it was a huge breach of impartiality/fairness rules.
Walker is not a figure of any importance (nor any intelligence by the look of the results). Why does she constantly get this free advertising whilst the BBC only puts men’s advocates on air begrudgingly or to try to smear them?
LikeLike
I’d have to observe that on this occasion the obvious bias rather backfired! However the serious point is the political bias of the BBC. Earlier in the I’d had a glance through the Library “Times” dodging all the Trump and Brexit related content I alighted on an article about Angela Merkel. It appears she having a devil of a job forming a coalition and there is widespread speculation she’ll join her husband in retirement. The front runner to succeed is a woman. Defence minister and member of a distinguished political dynasty both in her state (lande) and nationally. I reflected on what a magical thing feminism (of the tee shirt variety) is. For one can have all the advantages of birth position and wealth and pose as in need of every chivalrous assistance as if struggling.
I’m sure that in fact many in the BBC see the WEP not as just another political party, but some delightful ladies club devoted to the welfare of orphans.
LikeLike
I know you want this to be all about gender, Mike, but it also throws up some questions about the value of some of the degrees offered by the redbrick universities. Clearly ‘crop protection’ doesn’t instil in its students a voracious appetite for general knowledge.
Frank Cottrell-Boyce read English at Oxford, which is generally regarded as the closest course then available to the late lamented ‘Greats’ (Literae Humanores) which produced some of our greatest writers and statesmen. It was downgraded in the 20th century and then revived in 2004.
I was lucky enough to read English at St. Peters, and in addition to studying literature and the development of the language, was encouraged by my tutor to study topics ranging from Egyptian hieroglyphics to English garden design. Above all, this encouraged curiosity and a thirst for knowledge across many areas. My tutor was a student of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, considered to be the last man to have been in possession of all available human knowledge, and he commissioned a portrait of him from me, as I then used to paint. I think I exchanged it for a rather good bottle of champagne.
Many other degree course tend to focus very narrowly, and encourage students to ignore other disciplines, to their detriment.
LikeLike
Thanks Nick. Good points and an impressive picture!
LikeLike
“We can be sure what the response of feminists will be to all this. We need more female contestants on quiz shows.”
It will make the shows competitive again; imagine the knife edge tension as the show heads towards the final round, each team battling to get that one point which will lift it out of the ‘zero’ mark and give victory. People could take bets on whether it would be a ‘pass’ or a ‘correct answer’ round to every question. I for one see a bright future of female-led TV shows ahead of us.
LikeLike
Not strictly apposite, but an excellent comment to a Guardian article about equal pay (yes, I know, they should have deleted it), which I feel a really must post somewhere:
rjay Catherine73
17h ago
I didn’t say that it was “women standing in the way” of paternity leave, but feminists refusing to acknowledge the discrimination against men that was the problem.
In Canada, I have seen no evidence that feminists are willing to apply the principle of gender equality equally in any situation. Whether it is paternity leave, or child custody, or DV (which affects men in 38% of cases), or homelessness (over 90%of the homeless are men) or gender bias against men in civil service hiring, or the growing educational gap, or the higher male suicide rate, or any number of other areas, feminists claim to promote equality, but in fact oppose any discussion of those issues, while simultaneously complaining about double standards.
And that hypocrisy is becoming increasingly intolerable, and a significant barrier to ameliorating the situation for both genders. Feminist ideology is becoming the greatest barrier to true gender equality, and criticism cannot be suppressed by the usual techniques of censorship, shaming and false claims of misogyny any longer.
LikeLike
Were they paid to appear? If so, did the women who didn’t answer any questions get paid as much as the men? Is paying them all the same a victory for equality?
LikeLike
I don’t know, but maybe contestants should have individual performance-related pay? £10.00 for every point?
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that be tantamount to a glass cash-point? It certainly wouldn’t be accepted as in any way fair. I know, the male contestants could have a portion of their earnings taken as tax, say 72%, and that could be dished out to the humiliated women as an entitlement.
LikeLike
‘Frank Cottrell-Boyce scored more than 3x that of all five female contestants combined, while Paul Johnson equalled their points.‘
Where’s the pleasure in watching two men all too easily and predictably humiliating five women? I’d much rather watch two teams of women scoring zero in total and so humiliating themselves all by themselves, without having to rely on masculine help, although in this instance the score would have been 45 / 55 (say 50) to zero.
The episode reminds me of the transatlantic final of College Bowl, broadcast perhaps forty years ago, and introduced by a clearly delighted Bamber Gascoigne, in which a team from a US university was pitched against a team the Americans had condescendingly permitted the British selectors to choose from all of our universities. The British team beat the Americans by 550 – 50, if I recall correctly, without any wrong answers, although one was disallowed by the American quiz master, to the open mouthed astonishment of the team. I think the question concerned Mercator’s Projection because the British team captain replied ‘the polar regions’. ‘No’ the QM intoned, ‘the answer is the Arctic and the Antarctic’.
It seems as though the BBC now employ similar tactics to prevent female contestants from making complete fools of themselves.
LikeLike
I don’t get the reference… I know she’s nuts – but, err, Doughnuts?
Thanks in advance,
Max
LikeLike
Hi Max. I can’t immediately find the link, and I’m up in a few hours time for tomorrow’s Speakers’ Corner protest, but ‘doughnuts’ refers to an article in which Walker said that every time we awarded her or her colleagues (notably Sandi Toxic) an award – e.g. ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ – she and her colleagues sent out for doughnuts. Easier to do that than repudiate our assertions, I guess – which of course she couldn’t.
LikeLike
Wow. That’s just embarrassingly pathetic.
They apparently have no idea that there’s a warmth and comfort one can receive from being an authentic, intellectually honest, human being that is far deeper and infinitely more fulfilling than even the most luxurious of Comfort Foods.
I… pity… them.
LikeLike