For some time the BBC3 TV channel has only been available online. My thanks to David for pointing me to this, a 50-minute-long programme which will be broadcast online tomorrow evening, and repeated at 22:45 on Tuesday, 19 February, on BBC1. We’ll post to the piece on iPlayer, and hopefully on YouTube too. The BBC3 description:

Abused By My Girlfriend tells the remarkable story of Alex Skeel, a 23-year-old man from Bedford who survived an abusive relationship with his girlfriend Jordan Worth.

Combining observational filming with personal and police archive, this film provides a raw and uninhibited window into a teenage romance that descended into terrible violence.

Alongside Alex’s shocking and thought-provoking testimony, his family and friends also share their stories of seeing him slowly slip away, powerless to stop it, and unaware of how bad it would get.

Bedfordshire Police described Alex’s case as one of the most extreme cases of domestic violence they had ever dealt with. In hospital, doctors examined Alex’s body and told him that he was just ten days away from death. [J4MB emphasis]

In April 2018, Jordan was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. She became the first female in the UK to be convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour. [J4MB emphasis]

By sharing his story, Alex hopes to challenge assumptions about violence and masculinity in relationships, and to empower victims of domestic violence to come forward.

All five of the people credited for the programme are women. Such is the BBC today.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to David for this piece by Andrea Jenkyns MP in today’s Sunday Express. The start of the piece:

March 8 is Interna­tional Women’s Day; and Parliament will have its annual deb­ate celebrating the marvellousness of women and our feminist friends will speak up about why we need more women in “top jobs”.

There will also be a host of photo opportunities where women can stand together and, each year, I am asked by colleagues to take part in such festivities but each year I give the same response – sorry, I’m not a feminist. [J4MB emphasis. No need to be sorry, Andrea, you should be proud of the fact.] This is because I don’t believe in singling anybody out, by their gender, by whom they love, or by their race or religion. In fact, I believe the opposite. True equality is about treating everyone as equal regardless of creed or colour and not by divid­ing people into groups.

This is the first instance I can recall of a currently sitting female Conservative MP declaring herself a non-feminist.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Nick for this gem (video, 10:39).

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to an Australian follower of this blog for an interesting piece by a female journalist (what are the chances?) in the Sydney Morning Herald. The paper carries this headline:

Teen girls influenced by fathers’ heavy drinking

It’s one of those headlines which is both true and misleading. The chart shows clearly that the likelihood of Australian teenagers (both boys and girls) trying alcohol by age 14–15 is higher if the mother is a “risky” drinker, than if the father is one. It’s not permitted to criticise mothers, so the only stats in the report which can be used to criticise fathers disproportionately relate to their seemingly greater influence than mothers on daughters in this area. The protective effect of not being a risky drinker is higher for mothers than fathers, and the arguably greater obligation on mothers than fathers to not be risky drinkers isn’t explored in the article, either.

The article states, “Previous research has found teenagers from single-parent households are also more likely to drink”, without pointing to the obvious fact that the parents in the vast majority of single-parent households will be mothers, who are by definition immune to criticism.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Nigel for this. Extracts:

Pupils at the school have criticised the move.

“Netball isn’t just for girls, it’s for boys and girls,” said Mason, 10.

“If they’re taking away netball from the boys, why don’t they take a sport away from the girls?”

Ryley, also 10, said the move deprived boys of a new sport, adding: “I’m normally a football person, but I wanted to try something different.”

“If girls are allowed to play football, why can’t boys play netball?” said Florence, 10… [J4MB: Florence, that’s totally the WRONG sort of equality.]

Welsh Netball’s chief executive Sarah Jones said the rules of netball state it can be played by same gender or mixed gender teams.

But she added: “Netball is one of the few team sports to attract girls and women to participate in particularly large numbers, which contributes to address the global disparity in sports participation.”

Ms Jones said there had never been a demand for boy to play before, calling this “a whole new territory”.

“I think it’s an exciting time for the sport, that it is now starting to attract the attention of boys,” she said.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

An appalling piece on the Researching Reform website, lauding a feminist’s 400+ page thesis on women claiming their ex-partners were abusive, thereby leading family courts to deny those men access to their children – emotional abuse of the women’s children and their ex-partners (where the claims are unsubstantiated lies). I’ve left a couple of lengthy responses, and invite you to post your thoughts too. Thanks.

My latest response was in response to Mike Cox – a man not known to me – who wrote:

Adrienne Elise Barnett’s doctoral thesis is clearly not “incredibly thorough” if it is restricted to the issue of male on female DV and completely fails to examine the issue of female on male DV.

I responded:

Mike, an excellent point.

For decades feminists have claimed (and politicians and journalists continue to parrot the claim) that the vast majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men, against women. This – the Duluth model – must surely be the most discredited of all feminist myths, yet it remains at the core of the state’s thinking about domestic violence. It feeds the huge feminist DV industry, although it’s been discredited many times by researchers in the field, over decades.

Needless to say abused men are denied support because of the Duluth model, many male victims ending up among the street homeless, because in leaving their homes they’re deemed to be “intentionally homeless”. Street homelessness reduces life expectancy by an average of 30 years. 90 per cent of the street homeless are men.

Martin Fiebert is a psychologist, since 1978 a psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach. The full Abstract of his 2013 paper References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: an updated annotated bibliography https://j4mb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/3cb4c-140901-martin-s-fiebert-bibliography.pdf is this:

“This annotated bibliography describes 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 440,850 people.”

The highest rates of violence are found in lesbian couples. In most heterosexual couples where domestic violence occurs, it is reciprocal in nature – the men and women are at different times perpetrators and victims. In the minority of heterosexual couples where the violence is one-directional, the perpetrator is more than twice as likely to be the woman, rather than the man.

I’m guessing wildly that Ms Barnett’s “incredibly thorough and thought-provoking” 400+ pages thesis didn’t report what’s been known and reported by researchers into domestic violence for DECADES.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Professor Eric Anderson is a gay American sociologist and sexologist, specializing in adolescent men’s gender and sexualities. He holds the position of Professor of Masculinities, Sexualities and Sport at the University of Winchester. He has a husband and two sons. He gave a memorable talk at the last conference, titled A non-feminist approach to Masculinities.

William Collins and I will be giving talks to Eric’s students (and others – feminists and conservatives at the university have been invited to attend) in Studio 2, The Stripe Building, in the University of Winchester, on 1 March, 11:00 – 13:00. There will be time for Q&As.

William’s talk is titled, “Gender in History: Myth and Reality”, mine is titled, “Equal Rights for Men & Women”.

Elizabeth Hobson, our Director of Communications, will be joining us, but not giving a talk – because William and I are evil patriarchs, and refusing to let her speak. We did however allow plenty of women to speak at the conferences in 2014 and 2016 and 2017 and 2018. Elizabeth spoke at the last one, the playlist of videos of talks from that conference is here. The keynote speaker in 2018 was Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat). Women are organizing the 2019 conference, where the keynote speaker will be Professor Janice Fiamengo, creator of The Fiamengo Files.

Please email me (mike@j4mb.org.uk) if you’d like to attend our talks. Few spaces will be available, so don’t leave it too long.

If everyone who read this gave us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. £5.00 monthly would entitle you to Bronze party membership, details here. Benefits include a dedicated and signed book by Mike Buchanan. Click below to make a difference. Thanks.

Our thanks to Mike P for this. The sponsors include The Good Man Project, commonly referred to as The Good Boy Project by MRAs, inspired by how some dog owners refer to their dogs, when they’ve pleased them.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

An excellent piece by Dr Will Jones, published today by TCW, and brought to our attention by “Groan”, one of our most valued commenters and supporters. In an email to me, he wrote:

Will Jones makes a very good point about the Equality Act. He hones in on Sections 158 and 159 which he says ought to be a “high priority for conservatives serious about ending the scourge of identity politics in our country”. I’d suggest that it would be worth J4MB considering this as a specific Political Aim.

In particular the idea of repealing the two Sections rather than the whole Act. As Will Jones points out the Act continued the prohibition on “direct discrimination” which for instance was used to get Gov. concessions for retired men to begin at 60 while the retirement age was thus for women, and pushed Gov. into the harmonisation of Pension ages which so many women are whinging about now.

As far as I can see there is nothing lost for the rights of men to have legal equity, as it is men who are legally directly discriminated against by the State and Public services (and private companies). In the Act the protected characteristic is “sex” not “woman”  and it is Section 158 and 159 that allows all the various privileging of women (from STEM to accelerated promotion) and though many of these could be challenged as “disproportionate” of course then it’s complicated and expensive. Whereas simply having any discrimination on the basis of sex outlawed would automatically put most of this stuff on far shakier ground.

It would also change the debate to supporters of “positive action” to explain and defend it, rather than appear to defend “Equality”, which they would easily do if the prospect of repealing an “Equality Act” was held forth.

I agree with the stance of J4MB that the key to the future is taking “Equality” as the core rather then “Men’s rights” and this would fit as a political objective. It fits with the cultural climate: Public gynocentrism generally is hostile to very idea of “men’s rights” if it perceives them as in anyway disadvantaging women (which feminists use to their advantage constantly). And public support for “Equality” and “Fairness” as broad ideas, but one that is understood as equity of treatment (a level playing field) rather than the obtuse ideas of the feminists (privileges for women to counter some supposed male privilege).

Just some thoughts. Best wishes.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

I was recently approached by the (male) organizer of a series of evenings in the City of London, in which a panel of experts in particular areas give brief presentations, then answer questions from an audience of (mainly) business people. The session was to be about a range of issues including women in the workplace, women on boards, gender quotas, the gender pay gap…

I spoke at length with the man, outlining our positions on these issues, informing him of the solid evidence base underpinning our positions. I’ve just received the following email from him:

Dear Mike

Unfortunately we will not be able to go ahead with the booking.  I’m afraid you have been deemed too controversial.  I’m sorry about that as I have never had anyone object to a speaker before.  I’m sure its nothing personal but as you know companies are very risk-averse.

I am sure this will be a disappointment to you, as it was to me and once again I’m sorry about that.

All the best

I replied:

Thanks <name redacted>. What a weasel word “controversial” is. If telling the demonstrable truth is “controversial”, with whom does the problem lie? With the person telling the truth, or the person wishing to deny him/her a platform on which to relate the truth? I defy whoever finds me “controversial” to challenge any of the evidence underpinning any of my arguments, particularly on the issues of women in the workplace, gender quotas, the gender pay gap etc.

Our 2015 manifesto explored 20 areas where the human rights of men and boys are assaulted by the state’s actions and inactions, almost always to privilege women and girls. Feminists are demonstrably behind many of the assaults, and/or make them worse.

Frankly I long ago gave up on the business sector when it comes to promoting women above men, regardless of merit. Let them reap what they’ve sown.

If everyone who read this gave us £10.00 – or even better, £10.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.