Our thanks to Dan for this in the Mail. An extract:
‘Number 13, there’s much more fundraising for breast cancer research than for prostate or testicular cancer. They are cancer patients, none of them are privileged. Give all of them as much money as they want.
Also, men can also get breast cancer and it’s more common.’
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Heartening to see the top comments in the DM are all in support of the list. I think such publicity is helpful. The real success of feminism was to concentrate on the Universities and through them the “institutions” that run things. Making it appear that individual men’s experiences of discrimination were simply one offs or aberrations. The estimable Philip Davies MP was honest that for years he had simply taken for granted in debates that women were treated more harshly by the criminal courts, until he asked for a briefing on the data, and found that the exact opposite was true.
Lists and silly pieces like this make people think, as one comment says “I realised I’d been reading articles time after time where a female defendant got off where a man would be imprisoned”. Similar comments are made about other items on the “list”. In a way the triumphalism of feminism which has meant is widely spread in schools, media, workplaces , sport and so on, starts to get more thinking and more aware that there is indeed many privileges accorded females and discriminations against men.
Given the well attested psychological bias by both sexes for females and the much greater “in group preferencing” for women. Getting men to focus on unfairness, where they as individuals have or will experience discrimination against them, rather than an in group preference seems the best means to get them to see that what they experience is systematic. I really do suspect that a part of the reason younger cohorts of men are recognising a. that “feminism has gone too far” and b. males are discriminated against it more to do with the fact that they have actually experienced the discrimination (in education and work) and have been exposed to feminist ideology in school and work and media. Rather than some svengali like power exerted by Andrew Tate. In a way the exposure to feminism “joins up the dots” by giving a framework, after all its simple logic that if you systematically discriminate for one group you are systematically discriminating against the out group!
LikeLike
Meanwhile in Scotland we see the inevitable result of an ill defined offence in an age where everyone can be offended. Hate crime complaints to Scottish police set to outnumber total for all other offences (msn.com)
Amongst the sudden outbreak of common sense north of the border as the Scottish Government assures “Complaints received do not automatically mean crimes have been committed.” A view that could equally be applied to the complaints of sexual assault or rape.
I hope Police Scotland continue to be overwhelmed by this so we might see forces in England and Wales (I think in NI they have more serious issues) whose CIs have been keen on “hate crime” rethink some of their virtue signalling.
LikeLike
Well a bit of good news from Tasmania. It seems there excluding men from part of an exhibit is in fact illegal! Good for Mr. Jason Lau, who represented himself in the case. Mona: Court rulethe s women’s-only exhibit must allow male visitors – BBC News The point is that the exhibition was offering a set of services in the female only space of the “lounge””offering champagne and five-star service to female attendees”. The point of law being that this was direct discrimination against non females as they had tickets for the overall exhibition and were being excluded from a significant part of the exhibition’s services. This is in fact the same here in England and Wales and is why successful cases have been mounted here, in the cases of Women only days/sessions at Gyms, Women get in free nights at Bars and Clubs etc. The services have to at least balance their offer with men only sessions or simply end the special privileges for women. As in Tasmania this is civil law and relies on people doing as Mr. Lau. Importantly such cases establish precedents. But their full effect relies on people making complaints and these being publicised. Particularly without the latter its easy for all sorts of services to continue practices favouring women ignorant of flouting the law. Constantly I talk to people who simply assume discriminatory practices that discriminate against men are “legal” partly because feminists refer to the Equality Act as “protecting women”. This is often the effect but its not how its written nor how the courts interpret it when cases are tried. As we have seen in the USA where “Title IX” cases have been crumbling the many privileges and “affirmative action” (aka direct discrimination) in the University and College sectors.
The arrogant behaviour of the Museum staff and “artist” at court clearly irritated the judge. But it was the display of people unused to being challenged and used to doing just what they pleased.
LikeLike
But isn’t that how cults like feminism work?!
They brainwash their cult members who then blindly accept what the cult has told them. And argue against anything that challenges what the cult has told them is true.
LikeLike