An appalling piece published online by The Economist (the editor-in-chief since 2015 has been a woman). The reasons there are so few significant female entrepreneurs are perfectly well understood, but denied by feminists, ever keen to be parasites on men, as individuals or as taxpayers. The start of the piece:

Female entrepreneurs the world over are systematically excluded from economic participation, and face myriad barriers to doing business. Governments can do much more to help, says Linda Scott, emeritus professor of entrepreneurship and innovation at the University of Oxford, founder of the Global Business Coalition for Women’s Economic Empowerment, and author of The Double X Economy.

Almost three-quarters of the income taxes taken by the UK government comes from men. The article is nothing less than a demand that these men’s taxes are used to privilege wannabe female entrepreneurs. Extracts:

Women tend to have less experience with manufacturing methods and fewer network contacts to advise them on technical matters. They seldom have the knowledge to acquire the right equipment nor the capital to pay for it. Governments wishing to support the work of female artisans could help by offering the services of technical experts in much the same way as they provide agricultural training. Assistance could also come in the form of grants or low-cost capital for equipment.

So, what about men who “have less experience with manufacturing methods and fewer network contacts to advise them on technical matters”? What about men who “seldom have the knowledge to acquire the right equipment nor the capital to pay for it.” Well, they can just watch their taxes going to women in the same position they are. More of Ms Scott’s BS:

Globally, women own only 18% of available land, a vestige of centuries-old prohibitions against female inheritance. The consequent gender gap in property ownership renders small business loans unavailable to women. Like most women, Jennifer had no property and banks would not lend against a purchase order, even from a global retailer. So, her business stalled out while she waited for the transaction to be completed on the other side of the world. Her government could have helped by providing working capital loans and working with banks to open a path to credit for women…

A good start would be to allocate government procurement to women-owned businesses and to work closely with them through the process of production. In this way both women and governments could gain market experience and practical knowledge. If the two can work together to resolve the numerous challenges facing female entrepreneurs worldwide, an ecosystem that supports trade between women-owned businesses and large international buyers could be fostered on a global scale…

About the Author

Linda Scott is Emeritus DP World Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, University of Oxford. She is also founder of the Global Business Coalition for Women’s Economic Empowerment, a group of eleven major multinationals that work together to initiate, test, and facilitate women’s economic empowerment programs. [J4MB: AKA men’s economic disempowerment programmes.] Scott works with corporations, agencies, governments, and NGOs to design and test programs to economically include women. [J4MB: … and to economically exclude men.]

Professor Scott is the author of The Double X Economy, to be released in spring 2020 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux (United States) and by Faber & Faber (United Kingdom).

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.

Enjoy (video, 41:04).

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.

Just received:

Hello Everybody,

“Machismo kills more than coronavirus” was one of the slogans held aloft in huge protests for Women’s Day in Spain, held on March 8 – well after COVID-19 was starting to ravage the country.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, weak after forming a minority government didn’t want to risk his fragile hold on power by banning large gatherings. Instead, he allowed thousands to attend soccer games in early March as well as permitting a 120,000 strong feminist rally in Madrid to proceed.

But now he faces a possible criminal charge for allowing this to happen. The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether to open an investigation into Sanchez’ action in allowing this massive demonstration.

Malaysia suggests women should avoid nagging during lockdown

Next the Malaysian government found itself in hot water with the feminists after issuing lockdown advice to women suggesting they avoid disagreements with their husbands, for instance, by refraining from “being sarcastic if they need help with household chores.” Government officials were promptly reprimanded, told they should be concentrating on protecting women locked up with abusive men, and the posters were removed from public circulation.

No campus due process due to COVID-19

In the United States the National Women’s Law Center is arguing that efforts to reform campus kangaroo courts should be set aside due to COVID-19. Here’s saveservices.org, reporting on the latest moves by activists.

“‘The dog ate my homework’ is one of the oldest excuses students use to rationalize their delay in turning in an assignment.  The coronavirus pandemic is one of the newest excuses universities and others are using to request the Department of Education suspend the Title IX rule making process, aimed at restoring due process in the handling of sexual harassment and sexual assault cases on college campuses.”

Meanwhile in Australia

Here the National Cabinet has announced $150 million more funding to support the domestic violence services, following a flood of media stories reporting on the dangers of women being locked up with violent men.

See attached, a gender justice law professor from UNSW arguing that the Coronavirus cabinet must apply a gender lens to dealing with the crisis. Professor Louise Chappell suggests that we need more women amongst the relevant decision makers, even more funds for domestic violence support, more attention paid to women health care workers, more recognition for the burden of women dealing with unpaid care labour, and “provisions for girls and women’s menstrual rights” – making sure supermarkets carry sufficient sanitary products.

No ceasefire in feminist attacks on men    

The famous Canadian men’s rights activist and former Ottawa English professor, Janice Fiamengo, has produced a new video, expressing dismay that the world-wide health crisis has not led to a ceasefire in the attacks on men. She says it is obscene that the “poor me” rhetoric still dominates, with article after article appearing suggesting women are most affected by the virus, despite the fact that men comprise up to 70 per cent of COVID-19 deaths.

As Fiamengo points out it has hard to imagine a scenario where a pandemic was causing women to die in much higher numbers than men and have that not be a front-page news item and major focus of investigation.

Here’s Fiamengo spelling out the craziness of what is going on:

“I have yet to read an article on gendered impacts that paused over men’s higher mortality rate, lamented it, quoted anybody distressed about it, or suggested that special measures might be taken to protect men.

“I have yet to see a feminist journalist suggesting women could take over most activities involving potential exposure given women’s greater immunity. 

“I have yet to see a feminist article worrying about the men who face risks in their jobs. 

“Instead the articles move with jaw-dropping indifference about men to discuss what are glibly called the ‘secondary impacts’ or the ‘social impacts’ of the virus on women.

“Many of these impacts are speculative and short-term and hardly compare in severity to dying. The most serious is that women comprise the majority of healthcare workers and thus are ‘on the frontlines of the COVID-19 fight’, as one World Economic Forum article put it. The other frequently repeated complaint, far less onerous, is that women are the primary caregivers for children and other relatives, especially elderly relatives and are thus disproportionately burdened by school closures and the pressures of looking after sick parents. These may be true as far as they go but they certainly leave a great deal left unsaid.”

Here’s Fiamengo’s excellent video: Coronavirus: More Men Die, Women Most Affected – The Fiamengo File Episode 116.

Until next time, Tina.

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.

We recently posted a piece on the Women & Equalities Committee. 10 of the 11 members are women, including the chair, Caroline Nokes (C, Romsey and Southampton North).

Politics Home yesterday published an article by Noke – We cannot afford to leave anyone behind in our response to coronavirus. Extracts:

The Government’s response to Covid-19 risks exacerbating existing inequalities for the most vulnerable. This is why the Women and Equalities Committee has launched an inquiry to examine this further.

In these extraordinary and unprecedented times, the Government has taken extensive measures to support and protect the population from Covid-19.

However, as the crisis deepens, some of the unforeseen consequences of the pandemic, the emergency legislation, and of other policies and plans are becoming more visible. We have already seen examples of the impact on people who may already be vulnerable and marginalised.

Women’s Aid, the Victim’s Commissioner [J4MB: The vile Vera Baird QC, a radical feminist] and others have warned of the increased danger to women and children experiencing domestic abuse; isolated with the perpetrator and facing even greater barriers to leaving. The healthcare, education, support and housing/refuge services that identify and assess risk and support victims are under overwhelming pressures…

In employment rights, Working Families reports that legal advice lines have been inundated with calls from pregnant women who have been made redundant while men have been kept on, and others who have been told they must go to work or face the sack despite being categorised as a vulnerable group in Government guidance…

A recent article in the Lancet criticised the lack of gendered response to the Covid-19 outbreak, pointing out that “recognising the extent to which disease outbreaks affect men and women differently is a fundamental step to understanding the primary and secondary effects of a health emergency on different individuals and communities, and for creating effective, equitable policies and interventions.” [J4MB: No recognition that more men than women are dying of the disease.]

I would go further: we must apply this logic to all equality issues. As Government plans develop, it will be essential to understand the impact on individuals and groups who are already marginalised because of disability, race, sexual orientation, or any of the other characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010. [J4MB: By “other characteristics” she means gender, and specifically women.] Otherwise, we risk failing to create the most effective interventions. We risk exacerbating existing inequalities and divisions. At this time of unprecedented emergency and great national anxiety, we cannot afford these failures. We cannot afford to leave anyone behind. [J4MB: Anyone other than men, obviously.]

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.

We recently posted a piece recommending a recently-published book by Gerard Casey, 68, an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at University College Dublin – After #MeToo: Feminism, Patriarchy, Toxic Masculinity and Sundry Cultural Delights. The paperback edition appears to have sold out on Amazon’s UK website, but a Kindle version is still available, at £8.79 – here. Other retailers may have the paperback edition. If you click on “Look Inside” – at a corner of the cover image – you’ll be able to read some content, and our previous piece included three PDFs provided by the good professor, at our request.

You don’t need a Kindle e-reader to read Kindle books. You can read them on your computer, tablet, smartphone and some e-readers, using free-to-download software downloadable from Amazon.

Later this month we’ll be interviewing Professor Casey for our series Gender Matters.

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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 Steve for pointing us to some feminist BS in The Guardian, by one of its columnists, Sonia Sodha, about four weeks ago – The idea that family courts are biased against men is a dangerous fallacy. Writers of such garbage are nothing short of evil. In a just world they would be serving long prison sentences. Extracts from the piece:

The lack of transparency about how these decisions are made [J4MB: Custody of children, and contact with them] has allowed a dangerous narrative to prevail: that the system is biased against fathers…

Fathers 4 Justice demand the law enshrines a presumption of 50-50 contact. Their claims of court bias against men have gained broad traction in the debate around the subject, despite evidence to the contrary: a review of published court decisions found that they promote as much contact as possible with fathers, even in cases of proven domestic violence.

And in recent years, the junk science of “parental alienation syndrome” has gained traction. This idea was developed in the 1980s by Richard Gardner, a crank psychiatrist who thought child sexual abuse is not necessarily traumatic, and that mothers who don’t fulfil their partners sexually are to blame for fathers sexually abusing their daughters. Gardner believed that many mothers who claim they have been abused are liars, poisoning their children against their partners, and called it “parental alienation syndrome”, asserting that it was even more damaging to children than sexual abuse.

The Wikipedia page on Richard Gardner, who committed suicide in 2003, is here. To call him a “crank” psychiatrist is to insult the memory of a dead man.

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.

I have long been of the view that men should be paid a substantial sum of money by women – their partners, and others – for listening to them wittering on about things that are of no possible interest to them. Men would then earn far more money than women would earn if they were paid at commercial rates for housework, which hatchet-faced feminists always present as “unpaid work”.

What brought these thoughts to mind today? This recent gem from Paul Elam:

I’ve been hearing women say, for far too long now, that when it comes to talking about problems, “I don’t want him to fix my problems. I just want him to listen to me. I just want to be heard.”

Ladies, I don’t know what 10-cent self-help rag you read that in, but it’s total bullshit.

Look. Men solve problems. It’s what we do. It’s what we’ve always done. Expecting us to listen to you drone on for 45 minutes about shit you have no intention of resolving isn’t only a complete waste of time, it’s downright rude.

Men don’t listen to each other wallow in problems. We identify what’s wrong and go to work on a plan to set it right. Once we figure out that the man we’re listening to is just yammering about something with no interest in fixing it, we lose interest right away. Said yammerer will find himself without an audience, and quickly.

Any self-respecting man will do the same thing with you. And you know what? That’s exactly the correct response.

So, the next time you want to hold a man hostage to your endless stream of complaints du jour, do yourself and especially him a favor. Take that shit to your girlfriends. Have a bring-your-own-Kleenex party and go to town. Try your best to out whine each other. And whatever you do, don’t try to fix any of it. That would spoil the moment.

But when you get ready to actually DO something about the things that bother you, the man in your life will be happy to be there for you. Like I said, it’s what we do.

Solving problems. It’s a man thing.

I—————————-

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.

An interesting piece by Richard Teather, a Senior Lecturer in Taxation at Bournemouth University, and a chartered accountant, just published on the website of the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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 Kathy Gyngell for publishing a BBC interview of Lord Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, on TCW.

Our last general election manifesto is here.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

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.