Today’s video is here (10:51).
Over a period of more than two years we’re posting links to one video daily from the J4MB YouTube channel. The channel includes our media appearances since 2012, 300+ videos of talks and other materials from the International Conferences on Men’s Issues (2014 – ) and other men’s issues conferences we’ve been involved with, and so much more. The individual conference playlists are here.
Our website Campaign for Merit in Business was created in the light of the considerable evidence of a causal link between increasing gender diversity on boards and corporate financial decline. Mike Buchanan, Steve Moxon and Dr Catherine Hakim (the originator of Preference Theory) presented evidence to House of Commons and House of Lords inquiries in 2012, the video of their House of Commons evidence session is here (56:50).
Finally, we run the award-winning website Laughing at Feminists. The comedy channel (170+ videos) is here. Remember, it’s more than important to laugh at feminists, it’s a civic duty.
—————————-
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’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Justice for Men & Boys 
As an example of the mess out legislators have made trying to meet the contradictory demands of “women” (not all women but the middle class feminist ones). A fairly standard “whinge fest” My husband earns more than £100k so I had to quit my job to do childcare but actually as you go through it, it is a description of the mess that has been the result;
“We need to decide how we’re taxing married people. Because it’s not just unfair, it’s completely illogical to give help to people who have double the income of a family with one earner – even if they do make over a certain threshold. That money is taxed at an enormous rate and has to provide for an entire family.”
Of course the writer can’t see her own contradiction, wanting to be treated as a separate individual for tax purposes and in terms of responsibilities, while seeing the obvious results in terms of high tax on a family unit and absence of “help” to such a unit. What she describes is in fact a series of tax and benefit policies that penalise the single earner family with children, or indeed the main breadwinner and smaller additional income family with children. The latter being, in Europe and the UK, the preferred family composition of most women as “ideal”.
Or maybe that its by design. Effectively penalising the formation of families with one main “breadwinner”. Fits with de Beauvoir’s observation hat if you gave women the choice to be wives and mothers too many women will choose it. Explains why we have the “completely illogical”.
LikeLike