Month: September 2018

It’s the taking part that counts as competition gets the sack from school sports days

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

The feminisation of the education system has been a predictable disaster. A piece by Nocola Woolcock, Education Correspondent, in last Friday’s Times. Emphases ours:

From the three-legged race to the 100m sprint, generations of children — not to mention their parents — have used school sports day to show off their athletic prowess. Now such traditions appear to be falling out of favour as head teachers seek to focus more on the taking part and less on the winning.

Government figures show a sharp fall in the proportion of young children taking part in a competitive sports day last summer. A survey published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport yesterday revealed that 62.4 per cent of children aged five to ten had taken part in organised sport competitions at school in 2016. This fell to 55.6 per cent last year.

Education experts suggested that schools were ditching competitions to prevent children being divided into winners and losers. [J4MB: So they won’t build resilience in the face of competition, but will later suffer when they inevitably encounter it. Yes, that makes sense.] They also warned that sports days had been cancelled in some schools because of funding cuts.

A spokesman for the charity Youth Sport Trust said it was concerning to see a decline in competitive school sports days. “With children increasingly struggling with their mental health, and levels of obesity on the increase, it has never been more important to get young people active and taking part in competitive sport,” he said.

Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said that schools were moving away from traditional sports days to let more children participate.

A leading figure in education policy, who did not want to be named, said that sports day could be an additional victim of funding cuts, with schools losing administrative staff who might organise the event, or unable to pay to transport the whole school to playing fields if they were some distance away. He said: “It might be that the edges are starting to fray.”

The figures also showed a large decline in children aged 10 to 15 playing sport at least once a month. Boys’ participation fell from 96 per cent to 91.5 per cent.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Melanie Phillips: “The thought police turn men into the enemy. Moves to add misogyny to the list of hate crimes are motivated by intolerance and prejudice.”

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

An insightful piece published online by The Times this afternoon:

The Labour MP Stella Creasy wants to make misogyny a hate crime. Misogyny is defined as hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women.

Tomorrow, the Commons will debate Creasy’s amendment to the “upskirting” bill, which would add misogyny as an aggravating factor.

The MP reportedly hopes this will be the first step to making it a “hate crime”, along with offences motivated by hostility based on race, religion, trans identity, sexual orientation or disability. She claims the public backs such a move. A two-year pilot scheme by Nottinghamshire police, which recognised public harassment of women as misogynistic hate crime, is said to have received overwhelming support.

Yet laws already exist prohibiting violence against women, discrimination or harassment. So why does misogyny need to be made a crime? “Upskirting”, says Creasy, “is a classic example of a crime in which misogyny is motivating the offence”.

Really? What’s the evidence for that? It seems to be nothing other than the apparently unchallengeable belief that unwanted behaviour towards women is invariably motivated by prejudice against them.

This is a false and damaging generalisation. Since the perception of such a hate crime involves someone’s subjective view that she is the victim of male prejudice, it can expand to cover a vast range of behaviour. Such expansion is already on display in the Nottinghamshire scheme. This includes wolf-whistling, groping, indecent exposure, sexually explicit language, unwanted sexual advances and online abuse.

Some of these are, and should be, treated as offences in their own right. Others may be inappropriate, socially maladroit, oafish or evidence of pathological deviancy. But are they invariably motivated by hatred or dislike of all women? And are all of them serious enough to use up already overstretched police resources? And what about all those women who ogle men, address sexually suggestive remarks or insults to them, touch them inappropriately or speak of men in general with disdain?

Should misandry — hatred of, contempt for or prejudice against men — also be made a hate crime? And while we’re in the mood, why not make misanthropy a hate crime, thus criminalising all those with a generally grumpy view of their fellow human beings? Indeed, since hatred is part of the human condition, why not expand the criteria to criminalise most of the population?

Under hate crime doctrine, however, bigotry is reserved only for the powerful. Men are deemed to be the patriarchy that runs the show. So by definition men cannot be victims of women.

That’s why Zakia Soman, a women’s rights activist and one of the “experts” who decided in a recent Thomson Reuters poll that America was one of the ten countries perceived as most dangerous for women, explained this dubious ranking on the grounds that “our society is ruled by misogyny and patriarchy”. Feminists used to fight the disempowering perception that “biology is destiny”. When it comes to their view of men, however, biology is guilt.

Far from creating a more decent, civilised society, existing hate crimes have helped promote a climate of intolerance, bullying and social division based on suspicion, recrimination and blame.

Hate crime was first introduced in the US in the Eighties and was problematic from the start. This was because it did not seek to address any deficiency in the laws designed to safeguard people from harm.

It was instead part and parcel of “identity politics” in which groups define themselves as victims. Victimisation is deemed to be proof of an unjust society; in identity politics, virtually everyone outside the supposedly dominant establishment is a victim. Hate crime is a symbol of solidarity with them.

It is said to be more serious than regular crimes because the prejudice involved aggravates the harm done to the victim. Really? How? It doesn’t increase the injury sustained from an assault or the potential threat posed by harassment.

The aggravating factor is surely nothing more than the offence or revulsion felt by the victim at the crime’s presumed hateful motivation. So the extra punishment is instead for values thought to be objectionable.

Hate crimes thus don’t police deeds but thought. They are an attempt to drive out attitudes that the self-appointed cultural police deem to be beyond the pale. Now actual police are being used to enforce them.

Their arbitrary nature will inevitably mean the invidious targeting of certain individuals. The Canadian psychology professor Jordan Peterson, for example, says boys are the victims of “gender-equality” and that men are generally dominant in society because they are better at being in charge.

For that, he is of course labelled a misogynist of the deepest hue. If Creasy has her way, will Peterson be arrested for hate crime if he should return to Britain for one of his wildly successful public appearances?

Making misogyny a crime presupposes that male attitudes to women need to be regulated in and of themselves. It therefore makes men the enemy, not just of women but of decent and civilised values.

That is a hateful calumny. In other words, the real hatred involved in the crime of misogyny doesn’t lie with the male sex. It resides instead in the minds of those whose prejudice against men now risks labelling their chromosomes as accessories to crime.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Stella Creasy (Labour, Walthamstow) calls for MPs to make misogyny a hate crime

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

A piece published by The Times online this afternoon:

MPs will decide on Wednesday whether to make misogyny a hate crime for the first time.

Labour MP and women’s rights campaigner Stella Creasy has put forward an amendment to the upskirting bill that would add misogyny (hatred of women) as an aggravating factor in England and Wales.

If passed in the Bill, which will be debated in the Commons tomorrow, the new offence would be punishable by up to two years in prison. [J4MB emphasis]

Although the crime will be recognised only in relation to upskirting, it will force police to start recording incidents, and Ms Creasy hopes this will be a first step towards recognising it as a hate crime across the board.

Ms Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, said: “Upskirting is a classic example of a crime that is often motivated by misogyny. [J4MB: A ridiculous “argument by assertion” from a ridiculous woman. Some men hate women so they wolf whistle at them, take pictures under their skirts etc.? The lunatics (feminists) have truly taken over the asylum.] At the moment while you would be protected in your workplace from being targeted because of your sex characteristic, i.e. being a woman, out on the street we don’t make that distinction.

“Unless you situate those [misogynistic crimes] in terms of that wider hostility we end up with a situation where there are get-out clauses. So it doesn’t matter how the woman felt, it doesn’t matter how she was treated,” she said.

Ms Creasy said her amendment would give MPs the chance to take a stance on whether they think street harassment is a serious matter.

The amendment has been co-signed by eight MPs: Tonia Antoniazzi, Martin Whitfield, Luciana Berger, Debbie Abrahams, Peter Kyle, Lucy Powell, Rosie Duffield and Jess Phillips.

It comes a month after police chiefs were urged to recognise public harassment of women as a gender-based hate crime.

A study by Nottingham and Nottingham Trent universities revealed overwhelming public support for the policy. Researchers found that nine out of 10 female respondents had either experienced or witnessed street harassment. Women from black and minority ethnic backgrounds said they felt doubly vulnerable to attack because of their race as well as their gender.

Nottinghamshire police became the first in the UK to record public harassment of women in May 2016. During a trial, the force recorded incidents such as groping, using explicit language, or taking unwanted photographs.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Innocent doppelgänger Richard Jones demands $1m compensation after 17 years in jail

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

Richard Jones, right, was convicted of a crime committed by Richard Amos

Caption in The Times: Richard Jones, right, was convicted of a crime committed by Richard Amos

A piece by Boer Dang in today’s Times:

A case of mistaken identity that put a man in prison for nearly two decades may now cost the state of Kansas more than $1 million.

In 1999 Richard Jones was convicted of attacking and robbing a woman in a car park in Kansas City and sentenced to 19 years in prison.

Mr Jones, now 42, did not commit the crime — he was at a birthday party elsewhere in the city at the time of the attack — but was picked out by witnesses from a line of suspects.

After 17 years it emerged that the attacker was a man who looked uncannily like Mr Jones and was also named Richard, but with the surname Amos. Mr Jones was freed in June last year after serving nearly all of the sentence in what has been described as the “doppelgänger case”.

He has now petitioned the state of Kansas for $1.1 million in compensation, or $65,000 for each year he spent behind bars.

“Mr Jones now asks this court to officially recognise his innocence, so that he may close this painful chapter of his life and obtain the clean slate and financial support that the legislature intended for wrongfully convicted persons,” his lawyers wrote in court documents.

The petition also seeks an official declaration of innocence and funding for college tuition, counselling and housing. “This compensation is relatively small given the unfathomable hardship of 17 years of wrongful imprisonment,” Mr Jones’s lawyers said.

At the time of his arrest, he was 25 and had two young daughters. “I was not perfect, but I was a big part of their lives, and when I got incarcerated it was hard for me because I was used to being around for my kids,” Mr Jones told The New York Times. His children are now 24 and 19, and he has become a grandfather.

Reformers have held up Mr Jones’s case as an example of the flaws in the US justice system. “Richard’s case is a testament to the long, difficult and expensive process it takes to overturn a wrongful conviction,” said Tricia Bushnell, director of the Midwest Innocence Project, a charity that provides legal services to convicts with claims of innocence.

Misidentification by eyewitnesses is the greatest contributing factor to a worrying number of wrongful convictions in the US, according to the charity, yet legal precedents have meant that they are still relied on heavily in court proceedings.

The woman involved in the 1999 robbery who mistakenly identified Mr Jones admitted that she did not get a good look at the perpetrator and only saw the back of his head. There was no physical evidence placing him at the scene and his photograph was the only one in the lineup of six that fitted the description of hairstyle and skin colour. [J4MB: In plain English, the police rigged the process in order to get a conviction of an innocent man.]

When presented with a photograph of Amos at Mr Jones’s appeal, she admitted that she could not be certain which was the attacker. [J4MB emphasis]

Last year the judge concluded that there was “no doubt that a jury would not be able to reach a determination that this defendant was guilty”, and Mr Jones was freed.

It is close to inconceivable that a mother of two young children would have been convicted under similar circumstances.

You can subscribe to The Times here.

Bobbie Jillions, 34-year-old mother of two, creates rose gold vagina casts in bid to give women more confidence in the bedroom

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

Daily Mirror caption: Life caster Bobbie Jillions (Image: Kennedy News and Media)

Daily Mirror caption: She’s hoping to start organising parties where groups of friends can have it done together (Image: Kennedy News and Media)

Our thanks to James for this. Extracts:

A mum is making rose gold casts of women’s vaginas in a bid to give them more confidence in the bedroom.

Bobbie Jillions, 34, has been inundated with requests after launching her rather unusual idea, and she hopes it will get woman talking about their private parts.

She even believes it could save lives, by giving women the confidence to go for smear tests.

Bobbie, from Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, said: “I’m hoping my casts will make people feel more confident talking about their bits and pieces. The human body shouldn’t be a taboo subject.

“I hope this will encourage women to be more open and comfortable with their bodies.”

The single mum-of-two has plans to launch casting parties where friends can get together over a bottle of wine and have their bits moulded…

“The vagina casts were actually designed to be in a bedroom. They make a fantastic Valentine’s Day or Christmas gift if people are looking for something a bit different.

James writes:

The narcissism just doesn’t relent. I think I’ll do one of these for my dick and give it out to people as a birthday present. See what reaction I get.

 

INDIA: 2 BJP MPs seek to gather support for ‘purush aayog’; NCW says they have right to raise demand

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

Our thanks to an Indian follower of this blog for this. The start of the piece:

New Delhi: Two BJP MPs have demanded that a commission be set up to look into the complaints of men “suffering at the hands of their wives” due to “misuse” of laws.

National Commission for Women (NCW) chairperson Rekha Sharma said on Saturday everybody has the right to raise their demands, but “I do not think there is a need for a men’s commission”. [J4MB emphasis]

Harinarayan Rajbhar, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Lok Sabha member from Ghosi, Uttar Pradesh, and Anshul Verma, the party MP from Hardoi in the state, said they will address a programme here on September 23 to gather support for a “purush aayog”.

The two MPs said they have raised the issue in Parliament too.

“Men also suffer at the hands of their wives. There are a number of such cases pending before courts. There are laws and a forum for women to ensure that they get justice, but the concerns of men have so far gone unheard. There is a need for a commission for men on the lines of the NCW,” Rajbhar said.

“I am not saying every woman is wrong or every man is wrong. There are people belonging to both the genders that inflict atrocities on the others. So, there should be a ‘front’ to deal with the issues of the menfolk. I have raised the matter in Parliament too,” he said.

Rajbhar said demanding a national commission for men “is the right thing to do”.

Result of the BPS ballot (British Psychology Society) on a Male Psychology Section

/ Mike Buchanan / Leave a comment

Our thanks to David for passing on this email to him from Dr John Barry:

After eight years of campaigning, I am delighted to tell you the result of the BPS ballot: the majority have voted for a Male Psychology Section of the BPS!

 

Many thanks to everyone who voted for the Male Psychology Section, and who have supported us over the years. Three cheers for Martin Seager, who was the first to propose a Male Psychology Section. 

 

Out of around 4000 votes, two thirds were for creating a Male Psychology Section. I hope in the coming years we will demonstrate that the yes vote was for the common good.

 

Congratulations also to the other three new BPS Sections, all of which were approved today.

 

As Martin would say, onwards and upwards!

 

Best wishes, 

 

John