Our thanks to Martin for this hilarious piece in the International Business Times. An extract (emphases ours):

A job advert that called for the “ability to deal with the male banter” has been panned online for its everyday sexism.

The position, which was listed on Guardian Jobs but has now been taken down for its “inappropriate” language, was for an EA & Investor Relations Associate at an unnamed property investment firm in London with a salary of £40,000 to £45,000, plus bonus. The job also appears on LinkedIn, where the listing says it is no longer accepting applications.

The advert describes an office of about 45 people, including various friends and family members, where “everyone gets on well” and there is a “relaxed and buzzy environment although everyone works very hard”. Duties include diary management, travel, scheduling meetings, client interaction, ad hoc private support and other typical executive assistant tasks. [J4MB: Translation – secretarial duties, one and all.]

Later, in the skills and personality section, the advert calls for an ability to deal with male banter in the office alongside a “good personality” [J4MB: A creative attempt to stop feminists applying for the job, but they’ll ignore it] and someone who is “sociable but not distracting”. It also wants someone who is “great in dealing with HNWIs” – high net worth individuals.

Ads for all office jobs should demand:

• an ability to deal with male banter
• an ability to deal with female whining, wittering, narcissism and gossiping

Just published.

Just published on TCW. The piece links to an article in The Sun, in which Kathy puts her points well, while countering points are made by Harriet Minter, from Talk Radio’s Badass Women’s Hour. Talk Radio has the amazing Julia Hartley-Brewer as a presenter, clearly a higher life form than Minter. The start of Minter’s silly piece on the gender pay gap gives you a flavour of her ignorance about the matter:

Despite the fact that it has been 50 years since it became illegal to pay men and women differently for doing the same job, the chances are that if you’re a woman then the man sat next to you right now is earning more simply because of his gender. [J4MB emphasis]

Enjoy (video, 19:57). Insightful and, at times, hilarious. Best avoided if you’re offended by strong language, but in my view it’s justified in the context of commenting on the criminal injustice system failing to hold female criminals to account.

Our thanks to Mike P for this. An extract, emphases ours:

Latest figures show 1,275 British women were given offers to go to the university this year compared with 1,165 men. Of those, 1,070 female pupils took up their place while 1,025 males did so, said admissions body Ucas, whose figures cover home-grown students.

This year’s results are surprising since 5,360 men applied to Oxford compared to 5,245 women, a continuation of a long-term trend.

A university spokesman hailed the statistics as a positive step for gender equality.

He said: ‘We can’t say for certain whether this is the first time in history that Oxford has let in more women than men.

‘While it’s too early to call this a trend, it is a welcome sign of progress for female applicants.’ [J4MB: And, by extension, a welcome sign in decline for male applicants.]

Dr Samina Khan, director of undergraduate admissions and outreach, said: ‘It is a welcome sign of progress for female applicants to Oxford and we will continue to aim for gender parity when it comes to admission.’

You have to catch this. You do. (video, 39:22). Karen covers important ground other commentators haven’t. Good to see her reference (at 38:00) HEqual’s piece on the frequency of attacks on the Channel 4 News comments stream by Newman’s supporters compared with those by Peterson’s supporters (30:1).

Karen’s talk at the coming conference is titled, “Why women must consign feminism to the dustbin of history”. You can order your ticket(s) here.

Just published. An extract, emphases ours:

The former Conservative government was also accused of bigotry after they changed the Citizenship Guide given to all newcomers to include the following warning: “In Canada, men and women are equal under the law. [J4MB: Hold that thought.] Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, “honour killings,” female genital mutilation, [J4MB: Male genital mutilation, however, is just fine and dandy. You can keep on doing that, no problem.] forced marriage or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.”

I worked for the Conservative party as a business consultant at their London campaign HQ (2006-8), during which time I became a party member and minor donor. In the autumn of 2009 David Cameron announced his intention to introduce all-women shortlists for some seats (winnable ones, inevitably) for the coming general election. Along with many others members, I cancelled my party membership on the day of his announcement. The plan was quietly shelved.

Caroline Spelman MP was the party’s chairman during part of the time I worked for them. Four years ago we posted a piece titled Caroline Spelman MP drives me to despair, Laura Bates drives me to drink. In a BBC radio interview she was calling for all-women shortlists despite admitting that during her tenure as party chairman, ten times more men than women had applied to become prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs). This partly explains why MPs selected from all-women shortlists are invariably blithering idiots (Jess Phillips comes inevitably to mind). Needless to say, the Tories wish to jump on the anti-meritocratic bandwagon, because vagina.

There’s an appalling piece by Lauren McEvatt in the current edition of The Spectator, Should the Tories consider all-women shortlists? The issue of gender-typical differences in ambition to become a PPC merits not one sentence from the silly woman. An extract:

Is it possible that women are not standing because they are worried about the rough-and-tumble of Westminster politics?  I like to think we’re made of stronger stuff than that, so I sincerely hope that’s not the reason. [J4MB: Your ‘hope’ is driving your analysis?] Equally, is there a sense that it’s hard to strike a balance between having a family and work life? I know many of my female contemporaries share my view that having children before standing for election would be our preferable outcome, but this is not always possible. [J4MB: Why not? If only there were means couples could use to prevent pregnancy…]

In order to overcome this, [J4MB: To overcome WHAT?] the Tories may have to [J4MB: WHY may they have to?] consider adopting a selection system that I have always felt to be patronising to women, namely the all-women shortlist [J4MB: It privileges women, it doesn’t patronise them]. It could then be imposed [J4MB emphasis] on an adequate percentage of winnable seat selections. [J4MB emphasis: So, the same system that’s  been adopted by the Labour party, the Lib Dems, and the SNP. That makes sense.] While this would certainly guarantee us an increase in female representation within the Conservative parliamentary party, would this guarantee us high-calibre candidates? [J4MB: No, it would by definition guarantee you low-calibre candidates, because they wouldn’t have to be better than the best men available.]

Channel 4 News started this evening’s programme with a piece (video, 4:40) on the Presidents Club fiasco, promptly following it with an interview (video, 3:50) on the matter with… who else?… Jess Phillips MP, the Yardley Gob. The first link includes some video footage taken covertly during the charity dinner, needless to say there’s nothing in it remotely corroborating the FT journalist’s claims.

One prissy feminist making so far unsubstantiated allegations has brought down a men’s charity which has donated £20 million to charity. Shame on her, and shame on all her supporters in the media, politics etc.