An outrageous piece on the BBC website. It was written by a woman, all nine people she cites, or references, are women. This is gender balance, BBC style.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Justice for Men & Boys 
This was a planned attack. It’s purpose was not to “expose the nasty sexist behaviour of men”. That is just the lever being deployed. Rather its purpose was, and is, to further the agenda of eliminating male space – to facilitate enforcing female participation in everything, and hence the furtherance of female power. It’s always about power. The loss of £2M to children’s charities is the sort of collateral damage they are happy with in the pursuit of their grand objective.
LikeLike
Mr Bradford, you are dead right.
LikeLike
Spot-on Rick.
We see this behavior again in schools and universties.
Femarxists are not in the business of leaving men alone which is why any move to (re)introduce single sex education will be ferociously resisted.
In order to manufacture conflict (which is the purpose) it is essential the sexes are thrown together as much a possible.
Furthermore with regard to the unsupported allegations that the Presisdents Club event was a ‘meat market’, even IF true it could only mean that IF someone is buying, then someone IS selling.
LikeLike
‘ … to facilitate enforcing female participation in everything … ‘
To facilitate enforcing female power over everything. All it takes to stop this nonsense is for men to have the balls to say no. That few if any males in positions of authority seem to be able to do so is a damning indictment.
LikeLike
Every demand acceded to leads to another demand. Here, we have people like Phillips and May trying to tell grown male strangers how to behave in private with other consenting adults. The sensible response would be to tell them to mind their own business. But, as you say, few males in authority seem to have the guts. And where will constant pandering to feminist demands ultimately lead? To other demands, of course. In a recent video, a Canadian female academic called for males to speak only when females have spoken first. After that, I suppose, it will be males only speaking when a female has given them permission.
LikeLike
The bizarre thing is that if the event was an all male event, that is no women were allowed at all then there would have been no problem.
What is amazing about the response to this story is the process by which a minor event ends up with large consequences and being the lead political story:
1.Undercover journalist alleges poor behaviour by some attendees at a charity event.
2. Escallation of the issue from a few alleged incidents to a wide spread systematic problem despite none of the non-journalists involved complaining
3. Escallation of the behaviour from being disreputable behaviour easily handled by a competent adult into a serious threat to socieety
4. Closure of an established charity
Discussion of banning men from all male events despite this being illogical given the nature of the ‘problem’.
A little less hyperbole and bit more perspective would be welcome.
The rapid transition from alleged limited bad behaviour be some men to proposing restrictions on all men is breathtaking.
LikeLike
But it is the usual rapid transition that is made.
It would in fact be illegal under the Equality Act to do 5 for a private club (it is this part of the act that also allows things like the Brownies and guides to continue) .
However such things can make it appear “illegal” if MPs sound off about and there’s always quite a few Equality Officers” ready to announce something is illegal, when in fact it isn’t. Currently all sorts of male spaces such as the Masons, Golf Clubs (they bow to pressure not the law) Mens Groups, “Mens Fellowship” etc. etc. exist perfectly legally.
I have not followed the case but the event was “private” and a “Club” so was perfectly lawful.
LikeLike
And what’s more we don’t even know if the allegations are true.
LikeLike
‘The rapid transition from alleged limited bad behaviour be some men to proposing restrictions on all men is breathtaking.‘
Almost a ready made solution awaiting an appropriate problem.
LikeLike
Yes, how suspicious is that…
LikeLike
I actually think this is a good thing. Because the participants are all “big hitters” . As with “Pestminster” and now the pay cut for male BBC News “stars” we are seeing precisely the sorts of men that have been perfectly happy to “virtue signal” when the effects of feminists incursions have no consequences for them. The’re not young students and workers accused of rape, they’re not warehousemen or binmen who lose pay, or divorced fathers with too little left after divorce they can’t afford to visit or have stay their children, or their sons aren’t in “Comps” being ignored or “dissed”. Or even supervisory staff trying to get on the next rung of the management ladder to be pushed back in favour of a woman. I have some hope that now such things are starting to at least annoy such “High Value Individuals” they may stop just wafting through measures that do down their “brothers”, because now it affects them!
So frankly bring on more of this, its time the FTSE Directors, for instance, started to realise that having women in the boardroom because they make it more “convivial” may backfire and be an end to Business Lunches and the like.
LikeLike
Be careful what you wish for though. Like you I hope that will be a lesson to the men involved not to kowtow to the feminists, but when I look at places like Scandinavia which I assume are further down the feminist road than we are, I see precious little evidence of “powerful” men doing anything to change the situation.
LikeLike
I think this because they are either malicious SJW themselves, OR don’t really understand what they’re are up against OR are short termist opportunists and just don’t care.
LikeLike
Behold Madison Marriage, the woman who deprived a children’s hospital of £2 million; who forced the closure of a charitable organisation which may now no longer give such sums of money to people in need; who reduced the opportunities of women to avail themselves of work as hostesses at events like these (albeit at shocking low rates of pay considering what they knew very well it would involve). Now we see all too clearly the kind of moral standards these people have – none. And I doubt any of this could have happened if it had not been for the MeToo hysteria.
LikeLike
But women need to decide if they’re going to allow men-only meetings to continue unsupervised. We live in a patriarchy remember?
LikeLike