“This study investigated the targeted parent experience of parental alienation and alienating behaviors. One hundred and twenty-six targeted parents provided narratives in response to an open-ended question at the end of an online survey. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis framework was used to identify themes in the data. Six themes were identified illustrating targeted parents’ experience of parental alienation and alienating behaviors. Targeted parents described physical and emotional distance separating them from their child, emotional and financial costs associated with their engagement with “systems” such as legal systems and child protection systems. They described poor mental health and concern for their child’s psychological well-being. Targeted parents considered alienating behaviors to be a form of family violence. Additionally, targeted parents used active coping behaviors. It was concluded that further research is needed to better understand parental alienation. Mental health and legal professionals must collaborate to optimize support for targeted parents.”

Our thanks to Daniel for the link.

In response to a number of people enquiring where ICMI19 will be held, I’ve told them that no decision has been taken, but it will not be held in the UK. While the conferences are very important events in the MRM diary, they’re also demanding in terms of time and resources, and in eight weeks’ time we shall have hosted two of the four in the series. It’s time for others to step up to the plate.

It could be many years before ICMI returns to the UK. Indeed, it may never return, so your last chance of meeting legends such as Karen Straughan and Professor Janice Fiamengo and Steven Svoboda and Anil Kumar in the UK could be the July conference. If you’ve been wavering about whether or not to buy a ticket, I urge you to do so now – here.

Some time after the July conference, I shall start the process of seeking and evaluating bids to host ICMI19, in association with Paul Elam.

Our thanks to Ray for this. Ms Reeves is a blithering idiot, and the “chair” of the Business Committee. I really must send her the evidence of a causal link between increasing the proportion of women on boards, and corporate financial decline. I’m sure she’d evaluate the evidence dispassionately.

It’s illuminating to observe how often feminists such as Ms Reeves are “truly staggered” by meritocracy. The start of the BBC piece – by a woman – emphasis ours:

The Treasury’s failure to appoint a woman to the Bank of England’s rate-setting committee is “truly staggering”, the chair of the Business Committee said.

Rachel Reeves made the comment in response to Prof Jonathan Haskel’s appointment to the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).

Prof Haskel’s appointment means there is still only one woman on the MPC. [J4MB: Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.]

The Treasury said the role had been awarded on merit.

The department insisted it was “committed to diversity and encouraging the broadest range of candidates”.

It had “actively contacted” 44 women and 43 men to apply for the role. [J4MB: More women than men. Why, given that most senior economists are men? Clearly positive discrimination in action, the calibre of the women on average must logically have been somewhat – probably considerably – poorer than the quality of the men on average.]

Of those, 19 men and eight women applied [J4MB: Men more than twice as likely as women to apply] and four women and one man were shortlisted. [J4MB: So four out of eight women made it to the shortlist (50%) and only one man out of 19 (5%). That 10x differential IS “truly staggering”.] It also pointed out that two of the three people on the interview panel were women. [J4MB: Hmm, might this possibly… this will sound crazy, but bear with me… be a shameless attempt to ensure a woman got selected, regardless of the merit of the best candidate for the job? Prof Haskel must be so much more expert than the four women, that appointing one of the women would have made the Bank of England even more of a laughing stock among economists, than it already is.]

“The final appointment decision was based on merit,” it said. [J4MB: Well, at least we can all – other than feminists – agree on that. Prof Haskel landed the job despite the most outrageous and “truly staggering” recruitment process.]

Tiff Stevenson is honest about what feminists want from men: here.

A stopped clock tells the right time twice every day. In an explosive interview with Channel 4 News, Greer scorned the idea that rape should ruin a woman’s life and explained that: “We shouldn’t have our young women more afraid of a penis than our sons are afraid of a knife. That is just stupid. We are not getting it.” Hallelujah!

Our thanks to Mike P for this. Can anyone doubt that a woman in the same position would never have been charged, and if she were, have received a suspended sentence?

Our thanks to Mike P for this.

Our thanks to Jeff for this. The 10 “excuses” from the ridiculous government-backed Hampton-Alexander Review, all of which seem to me to be either invented or reasonable:

• “I don’t think women fit comfortably into the board environment”

• “There aren’t that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board – the issues covered are extremely complex”

• “Most women don’t want the hassle or pressure of sitting on a board”

• “Shareholders just aren’t interested in the make-up of the board, so why should we be?”

• “My other board colleagues wouldn’t want to appoint a woman on our board”

• “All the ‘good’ women have already been snapped up”

• “We have one woman already on the board, so we are done – it is someone else’s turn”

• “There aren’t any vacancies at the moment – if there were I would think about appointing a woman”

• “We need to build the pipeline from the bottom – there just aren’t enough senior women in this sector”

• “I can’t just appoint a woman because I want to”

Our thanks to Mike P for another piece for the “You couldn’t make this s*** up!” file.

Daily Mail caption: Chef Deborah Evans abused the trust of 15-year-old Katrina Holmes’ family to babysit the child but she abused her

Our thanks to Mike P for this.