Dr Khandis Rose Blake, a psychologist at the University of New South Wales

Dr Blake’s profile on the University of South Wales’s website is here. From her “Research snapshot”, the emphases are ours:

I have four main lines of research. First, my research considers how behavior, attitudes, and culture associated with gender are influenced by the interplay between biological, environmental, and economic forces. Myself and my collaborators propose that gendered phenomena such as inimate (sic) partner violence, [J4MB emphasis: It’s been known for almost 50 years that IPV is not a gendered phenomenon. Can Dr Blake seriously be unaware of the mountain of academic evidence over recent decades that confirms this?] attitudes toward abortion, and male-male aggression arise partially out of mating market dynamics [J4MB: Surely the same could be said for female-female aggression? It has long been known that the highest rates of IPV are found in lesbian couples.] Second, I investigate the causes and consequences of female-female intrasexual competition and the conditions under which female sexualization elevates women’s agency. Third, I develop methodological tools to advance the psychosocial study of female ovulation and ovarian hormones. Finally, I am interested in the reproductive contexts eliciting aggression, especially male-to-female aggression and intimate partner violence. [J4MB emphasis: There we have it. One of countless ideological “academics”.]

An example of my current research questions are:

1. 1. How do socio-structural outcomes predict misogynistic sentiment on Twitter (men’s right activism and related tweets)? [J4MB emphasis: No interest in misandrous sentiment on Twitter, from women in general, and feminists in particular?]

   2. What is the relationship between female intrasexual competition (sexualized selfies) and income inequality versus gender inequality?

   3. What is the relationship between gender equality and attitudes towards male-to-female intimate partner coercion? [J4MB emphasis: No interest in female-to-male intimate partner coercion?]

   4. How do sex ratios affect violent crime in Australia?

   5. How are attitudes towards female sexual suppression predicted by the reproductive stakes one holds in the sex of one’s kin.

Ms Blake came to my attention through a piece by Mark Bridge, Technology Correspondent, in today’s Times:

Women post sexy selfies for evolutionary “social-climbing” reasons and not due to patriarchal oppression, researchers claim. [J4MB: Not due to patriarchal oppression, which doesn’t exist? No shit, Sherlock!]

A study claims that women sexualise themselves online in places with greater economic inequality, rather than where they might be oppressed because of their sex. It claims they are not victims or vacuous but “strategic” mate-seekers. [J4MB: In common parlance, “slappers”.]

For their paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team of psychologists and evolutionary researchers analysed 68,562 selfies on Instagram and Facebook from 113 countries. They tracked posts where women tagged their selfies as “sexy”, “hot” or similar.

Khandis Blake of the University of New South Wales, the lead author, said: “We then looked at where these things happened most. The number one way that psychologists usually look at women’s preoccupation with their appearance is that it happens because of patriarchal pressures [The “number one way” is farcical… but then most psychologists are women, so that might contribute to the farce.] – that women live in societies that value their appearance more than their other qualities. The argument is usually that when you see sexualisation, you see disempowerment.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Our thanks to Ray for this (video, 5:27).

The issue of abortion was covered in our last general election manifesto (pp.5,6).

Disgraceful. I can only assume this is being done to advantage female candidates over male candidates. An extract:

The Conservatives are desperately trying to boost their popularity among young people, who have deserted the party and flocked to Jeremy Corbyn instead.

But Tory candidates in Cambridgeshire have railed against the questioning, The Sun reports.

One Tory member told the newspaper: ‘Why are we always limping behind the latest fad or fashion but never catching up, and succeeding only in making a fool of yourself…

Several MPs are big fans of the show – with Labour MPs Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips and Lucy Powell dubbing themselves ‘super fans’.

The trio have a WhatsApp group where they talk about the show, and have appeared on TV to talk about about how much they like it.

We need more female MPs…

Kings Arms, Horsham, Sussex. A victim of politically-correct whiners.

Our thanks to Sean for this. A pub in Horsham, Sussex, is to withdraw from sale “Beer Goggles” ale. The full article in the West Sussex County Times:

The Kings Arms, in Guildford Road, has been serving alcohol on tap with a bar clip advertising Beer Goggles.

The clip has a photo of a haggard old woman on it and when rotated shows another image of a younger looking woman.

On Twitter WikiSussexPubs – which posts guides to pubs across Sussex – posted a picture of the clip with the message “Elgood Brewery’s ‘Beer Goggles’. A great pint, and just the best pump clip I have seen in ages!”

In response to the tweet several people criticised the clip claiming it was ‘something that belonged in the 70s’. [J4MB: Several people tweeted this exact phrase? A co-ordinated whiners’ campaign, then.]

The Kings Arms later released a statement saying it was removing both the beer and the clip from its bar. It said: “We notice that a pump clip on show in our pub seems to have caused upset [J4MB: Upset to whiners, who should be permanently banned from the pub.] Our interests lie in selling good beer to all with cheer, as long as you’re between 18 and 118 you’re welcome. This pump clip or beer will not feature on our bar again!”

A spokesman for Elgoods Brewery said: “This is a beer, and pump clip, that we have sold nationwide in both 2017 and 2018 and it has been well received in trade. “The pump clip and name is based on an old, traditional image (somewhat older than the 1970s!) and is meant to be, and is generally accepted as, a little bit of fun. “We are a very old family brewery, owned and run by three sisters [J4MB emphasis] and would not seek to intentionally offend people although it is always possible to do so inadvertently.” [J4MB: Whiners will always be offended, whether intentionally or inadvertently. It’s what they live for. Why should the lives of normal people be affected?]

I’ve just posted the following comments on the contact form of their website (about 80% of the way down). Why not send them your own comments?

Good morning. I lead Justice for Men & Boys https://atomic-temporary-215937230.wpcomstaging.com, the only political party in the world, and have done so since its launch in 2013. It remains the only such party in the English-speaking world.

I’ve been informed of a piece in the “West Sussex County Times” of your withdrawal from sale of the “Beer Goggles” ale. “Beer goggles” is no more offensive a term than “wine goggles” for women, pointing as it does to an eternal truth about alcohol.

Pandering to whiners never satisfies them, they’ll find something else. This is just another example of pubs bowing down to PC pressure against their male customers – who after all are the source of most of their income – and must be resisted.

If you reinstate the beer, even temporarily, I should be delighted to drive two hours from my home in Bedford to sup a pint of “Beer Goggles”, if interviewed and photographed by a local paper. Thank you. In the meantime, I’m about to post a blog piece on this matter on our website, https://atomic-temporary-215937230.wpcomstaging.com.

I first read Decline and Fall, the first published novel (in 1928) of Evelyn Waugh, whilst I was around 14 or 15 – 45+ years ago. Of course parts are dated, but reading it again, I’m pleased to report there are some wonderful laugh-out-loud moments. The main character is the impoverished teacher Paul Pennyfeather, who becomes engaged to a rich widow, the Honourable Mrs Margot Beste-Chetwynde. The latter is interviewing young ladies for work in South America – Pennyfeather has no clue as to the nature of the “work” – and we get to this paragraph:

Paul sat in the corner – on a chair made in the shape of an inflated Channel swimmer – enraptured by her business ability. All her vagueness had left her; she sat upright at the table, which was covered with Balmoral tartan, her pen poised over an inkpot, which was set in a stuffed grouse, the very embodiment of the Feminist movement.

Our thanks to Neville for this:

A 60yo man takes his wife with him on a hunting trip in the Rocky Mountains. He’s gone on many hunting trips before, this is her first time. After an hour walking trough the forest, he has a heart attack, and lies motionless on the ground.

His wife becomes hysterical and calls 911. Between sobs, she says to the man on the phone, “I’m on a hunting trip with my husband, he’s just had a heart attack, I think he might be dead.”

The man replies, “Well, can you make 100% sure?” She agrees to.

A few seconds later, two rifle shots ring out. The wife returns to the phone, and says, “OK, he’s DEFINITELY dead now. What next?”

I think we can all agree that most of the financial abuse arising in marriage and divorce is female-on-male rather than the reverse.

Two days ago a female “journalist” at the Financial Times had this nonsense published by the paper. The start of the dire piece:

People who abuse their partners by controlling their access to money should be prosecuted, Britain’s former home secretary has said. Amber Rudd is the most high-profile supporter of a move to recognise “economic abuse” when the government puts forward a domestic abuse bill this autumn. Economic abuse most commonly sees men forcing women to be dependent on them for housing, [J4MB: How do men do that? By working to pay rents and mortgages? Why, those damned patriarchs!!!] food, clothes, transport or money.

The end:

Jess Phillips, the Labour MP who leads the Women’s Parliamentary Labour party, said one of the “main barriers” for women leaving abusive partners was “debts and financial arrangements they have been forced into”.

Surviving Economic Abuse said more information was still needed about the scale of the problem. It has called on the annual Crime Survey for England and Wales, which informs government policy, to ask participants whether they had been prevented from having a “fair share” of the money in their household. [J4MB: What will be the grounds for determining what a “fair share” would be? Women’s feelings, as usual, we can be sure. Hmm, how many women would like to spend a higher proportion of the household income, whether or not they have earned a penny of it? They already spend a damned sight more than they earn. But it’s never enough, is it?]

You can subscribe to the FT here.

About two-thirds of public sector workers are women, about two-thirds of private sector workers are men. Men pay almost three-quarters of the income taxes which prop up public sector pensions, and of course the average number of years a former public sector worker will draw a pension will exceed the equivalent for a former private sector worker, because of the gender differential. Keep these facts in mind as you read this piece by Francis Elliott, Political Editor, in yesterday’s Times:

A 25-year-old starting work in the private sector would have to put almost a third of their salary into a workplace pension to match the retirement benefits of a colleague embarking on a career in the public sector, according to low-tax campaigners.

The pensions gulf between schemes available to those working for private companies and workers in state-run organisations remains acute, the Taxpayers’ Alliance says in a report published today.

Making contributions of 8.5 per cent of the average national wage of £28,600, a 25-year-old starting in a private sector job can expect to save a lump sum capable of buying an annuity of £6,412, it claims. In the public sector the same contributions on the same wage would earn an annual income of £17,563, it says. The private sector worker would have to save 30 per cent of their salary (£8,606 a year) to build the same entitlement.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Times caption: Michael Palin said that the BBC never wanted to broadcast Monty Python

A piece by Matthew Moore, Media Correspondent, in today’s Times:

Michael Palin has criticised the BBC’s obsession with political correctness and hit back at the executive who claimed that the Monty Python troupe were too white and Oxbridge for modern television.

The former Python star dismissed recent comments from Shane Allen, the corporation’s controller of comedy, as “silly” and said that jokes should be judged on whether or not they are funny, rather than the background of the person who wrote them.

Palin, 75, also accused the comedy chief of “beating us up when we’re down”, noting that nearly half a century had passed since Monty Python’s Flying Circuswas first shown by the national broadcaster.

The row erupted in June, when Mr Allen said that viewers had heard enough of the “metropolitan, educated experience”. He added: “If we’re going to assemble a team now it’s not going to be six Oxbridge white blokes, it’s going to be a diverse range of people who reflect the modern world.”

You can subscribe to The Times here.

We recently reported on the scandalous reinstatement of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba in the High Court, following the success of the GMC to have her struck off. A rare example of patients’ interests being prioritised over the job security of incompetent doctors and/or nurses. It seems likely a head will roll over this case – not the female doctor’s, but that of Charlie Massey, the male Chief Executive of the GMC. A piece in today’s Times:

Doctors have told the General Medical Council’s chief executive that his position is untenable because of his handling of the case of a paediatrician struck off after a boy in her care died.

Hadiza Bawa-Garba, who was convicted of gross-negligence manslaughter over the death of Jack Adcock, six, won her case at the Court of Appeal to be reinstated to the medical register two weeks ago.

Doctors said that issues raised by the case, including dangerous understaffing and IT system failures, were ignored.

The Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association (HCSA) has told Charlie Massey that the GMC may never regain the medical profession’s confidence under his leadership.

The HCSA has raised several concerns about Mr Massey’s conduct, including what it described as his personal decision to seek to override the findings of the GMC’s tribunal service.

Dr Bawa-Garba was found guilty in 2015 after Jack died from sepsis at Leicester Royal Infirmary in 2011.

A tribunal ruled last year that she should remain on the medical register but issued a one-year suspension.

The GMC appealed against the sanction in the High Court, saying it was not sufficient, and Dr Bawa-Garba was struck off in January, before being reinstated.

Dr John West, of the HCSA executive, said: “The chief executive’s fingerprints are all over a case which has seen confidence in the GMC collapse.”

You can subscribe to The Times here.