A few hours ago we posted a link to an excellent new piece by HEqual – Cathy Newman’s feminist fans aimed 30 times more violent sexist abuse at Peterson & his supporters than vice versa. Our thanks to Joe for letting us know Peterson has tweeted a link to the piece – here.

Our thanks to Sean for this excellent piece (video, 15:56).

Our thanks to Mike P for this. Extracts:

A coroner has slammed a detective for acting as ‘judge and jury’ in the case of a grandfather who killed himself after being accused of historic sex abuse.

Alan Bailey was ‘hounded’ to his death after he was accused of indecency and rape by a woman who alleged he had abused her when she was just 15, the inquest heard.

The father-of-two, who always maintained his innocence, faced a campaign of intimidation by the woman’s partner that left him ‘paranoid’ and suicidal.

But when he complained to South Yorkshire Police investigating officer Aneela Khali-Khan, she allegedly told him to ‘man up’ – failing to probe the harassment he faced.

Just days before he was due to stand trial, the 56-year-old drove to a Peak District beauty spot in the village of Miller’s Dale and plunged a kitchen knife into his heart.

Minutes before he stabbed himself, he texted his daughter to say he had had enough of ‘PC s***’. Another text read: ‘I’m crying. I’m not guilty. They have broken my heart. Can’t go on. Love u. Dad.’

His daughter, Theresa Bailey-Skews, said he also inadvertently phoned her and left a message on which she could hear his scream as he plunged the knife into his heart…

Ms Khali-Khan, who joined South Yorkshire Police in 2003, was a detective constable at the time with two years’ experience in the criminal investigation department.

Last year she was promoted to Acting Detective Inspector. She confirmed ringing Mr Bailey to mediate between him and his wife over who should be living at the home.

Dr Hunter (coroner) asked the officer: ‘You said his wife had ‘done no wrong’. What wrong, at that point, had Mr Bailey done? He had none. You assumed he was guilty?’…

Concluding he took his life while the balance of his mind was ‘temporarily disturbed’ the coroner added: ‘This in part was contributed to by the actions of a third party and by individual and collective failures of South Yorkshire Police from taking appropriate action to mitigate relevant and genuine concerns.’

Dr Hunter said Mr Bailey ‘lost all confidence in the force, his mental state deteriorated, and he had begun to self-harm’.

He called the investigation ‘not fit for purpose’ and said issues raised during the week-long inquest were ‘extremely serious’.

He added: ‘I feel Mr Bailey would have been better served by the Keystone Cops as opposed to South Yorkshire Police.

‘When a complaint is made the police have a duty to investigate it thoroughly. Mr Bailey called the police four times and each time his concerns were dismissed.’…

Dr Hunter also referred the force over their handling of the family’s complaint after Mr Bailey’s death. He questioned their internal investigation and said his daughters received ‘platitudes and a whitewash’.

After the hearing Ms Bailey said: ‘We always felt that the police woman had made up her mind that Dad was guilty. What ever happened to innocent until proved guilty?’

Our thanks to Nick for this (video, 12:42).

Excellent.

Our thanks to James for this ludicrous piece in The Guardian. Extracts:

Though it is unfair to pigeonhole two such intelligent people, the conversation between Peterson and Newman, distilled to its essentials, [J4MB: This is Guardian doublespeak for “ignoring the neo-Marxist bias of the interviewer, and her shameful repeated (but failed) attempts at misrepresenting and demonising her interviewee”] was an argument between classical liberal ideas and modern identity politics…

There are plenty of people who think that Peterson has no place on a mainstream news programme, or even in academic life…

A pluralistic, diverse society needs more free speech, not less. It needs fewer safe spaces and bans, and more civility and resilience.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: what right does a white, middle-class, straight, cis male who turns 50 this week have to say anything about this? [J4MB emphasis: This sentence tells you all you need to know about this vile trashy propaganda rag, fit only for lining cat litter trays.] And the answer is: I say what I like, within the law, and so do you.

Women and cycling are, in combination, a rich source of comedy. Who could forget the piece we posted in 2014, Meg Hillier MP: More women would cycle if they could ‘pootle along’ in a ‘slow lane’? Ms Hillier was elected an MP in 2005, having been selected from a Labour all-wimmin shortlist. In 2016 we posted Concealed motor found on female cyclist’s bicycle at cyclo-cross world championships.

Our thanks to James for this important piece on the BBC website. Let me summarise the comments from women: “Wah! Wah!! Wah!!!” Surprisingly, Laura Bates, inaugural member of The Whine Club, makes no appearance in the whine festival.

For sheer entertainment, at the end of the piece is some good advice published in New York World (1895):

The changing face of cycling – advice for the female rider of 1895

• Don’t boast of your long rides
• Don’t cultivate a “bicycle face”
• Don’t refuse assistance up a hill
• Don’t use bicycle slang. Leave that to the boys
• Don’t go out after dark without a male escort
• Don’t scratch a match on the seat of your bloomers
• Don’t appear in public until you have learned to ride well
• Don’t appear to be up on “records” and “record smashing.” That is sporty

Our thanks to James for this piece in The Guardian. Women marching for gender equality, eh? Marvellous. Which of their many privileges are they prepared to give up to achieve this objective, I wonder? An extract from the piece, to give you a flavour of the intellectual content of the march participants:

Bea Miller, holding a sign that read “I rebel therefore we exist”, said: “I’ve been fighting for equality for women for as long as I can remember and feel like the time is now for women to finally smash the patriarchal system that keeps us all – men and women – oppressed.”

She added: “I think it’s fantastic that so many people have come out in this awful weather and we’re just saying ‘no more’.”

A group of 13- and 14-year-olds were also in attendance. One of them, Yuri Watanabe, said: “Women are being oppressed everywhere, even in places you wouldn’t even imagine. We came here to represent.”

Her friend, Zara Khan, said: “When you go to work it should be a professional environment and you shouldn’t be abused. So many women can’t say anything because of the power over them. It’s important to raise awareness and show support as women.”

A piece by two female journalists (Sian Griffiths and Julie Henry) in today’s Sunday Times. The emphases are ours.

Oxford University students were given longer to complete exams for the first time last summer in an effort to help women achieve higher grades.

Extended durations for exams have been introduced by the mathematical and computer sciences departments in response to a growing gender gap, especially in final year exams.

Undergraduates were given 105 minutes to complete papers rather than 90 minutes “with no change in length or difficulty of questions”. The university said women did better as a result.

It is hoped the change will reduce “the undue effects of time pressure”, which is thought to have more of an impact on female students than male ones.

Helen Zha, a member of Oxford’s Mirzakhani Society for women studying maths, said female undergraduates were more likely to experience problem-solving difficulties when male students were in the same room.

She said: “One thing I’ve heard and felt [J4MB: Heard AND felt? This trumps peer-reviewed scientific research, any day.] is that where there are more males in the room, women will . . . perform worse than they would otherwise.” [J4MB: Hmm, what would be the “solution” to this “problem”? Of course. Give women higher grades when they’re forced to sit exams in the same room as men. Sorted. And later, in the workplace environment? Give women more money if they have to work with men, or segregate the sexes. Sorted.]

The change to maths exams follows a decision by the history department to replace a traditional exam with a “take-home” paper, also done in an effort to try to boost results for female students. The move was criticised as “sexist” by some academics for implying that women were the “weaker sex”.

Of all subjects at Oxford, maths has one of the biggest gender variations in results. Just seven female maths finalists achieved firsts last year compared with 45 men. This means that 21.2% of women on the course graduated with first-class degrees against 45.5% of men.

Maths dons at Oxford looked at whether “shorter exams may particularly disadvantage women” and pointed out that exams were not supposed to be “a time trial”.

Internal documents obtained under freedom of information laws show the decision to extend the time of examination papers “with no change in length or difficulty of questions” had the intention of reducing the disadvantage to “students most sensitive to time pressure and stress”.

The document said: “It is thought that this might mitigate the . . . gender gap that has arisen in recent years, [J4MB: This simply begs the question of why the gap has arisen in recent years, and regardless of the answer to that question, why it’s a problem, other than when viewed through a feminist ideological lens] and in any case the exam should be a demonstration of mathematical understanding and not a time trial.”

It is widely accepted that there are no inherent gender differences in mathematical ability or intelligence. [J4MB: A truly absurd “argument from assertion”. In which cohort of people is that “generally accepted”? Obese one-legged Spanish feminists with blue hair? From an earlier paragraph: “Of all subjects at Oxford, maths has one of the biggest gender variations in results.”] However, Sarah Hart, a maths professor at Birkbeck, University of London and an Oxford graduate, said she had noticed a tendency for female students to double-check their answers in their heads [J4MB: In their heads? Probably the best option, given possible alternatives e.g. in their legs] before suggesting them to class. [J4MB: Two points. Double-checking is time wasting, why should exams be extended to accommodate it? And it’s suggestive of anxiety and/or narcissism – “before suggesting them to class” – both of which are qualities likely to be problematical in the workplace, and more generally in the “real world”.]

Male students were quicker to answer questions, she said, but were more likely to get the answer wrong. [J4MB: Male students’ higher grades suggest they were also more likely to get the answer RIGHT.]

She added: “I am a big fan of giving people as much time as they want to do exams. [J4MB: Because that’s how people will later compete in the real world, amirite?] After all, you never have to prove theorems against the clock in real life so mere speed is not what we want to assess.”

Oxford University said: “The departments are not drawing any firm conclusions from the first year’s data. [J4MB: Beyond confirming yet again that there’s no limit to how far female privileging and anti-meritocratic initiatives can be pushed in academia, as elsewhere, without effective opposition] However, third-year female students did show an improvement on their second-year marks. While there is clearly more progress to be made, the departments will continue with the longer papers for the foreseeable future, monitoring the exam data carefully.” [J4MB: With the ultimate objective being…?]

@siangriffiths6

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Simon Warr describes himself on his blog, The Warr Zone, as “BBC broadcaster, author, former languages teacher, Headmaster on the Channel 4 television series That’ll Teach ‘Em.” Our thanks to William for this.