Wednesday, 13 June 2018

Theresa May - At G7 Summit - Violence Online? Misandry Again!

Dreadful misandrist Theresa May has been at it again. Having proven that she can't manage Brexit, thrown crumbs at prostate cancer funding and made nonsensical noises about the non-existent gender wage gap, she's now back on her feminist hobby horse, hijacking part of the G7 Summit for her bigotry:

‘Online violence against women and girls should not be separated from offline violence’, 

WHAT? You can't have online violence. I'm sorry, you can't. And saying you can simply trivialises real instances of violence. And why is that dreadful old bigot only speaking up for women and girls?

Even the BBC has reported:

Half of all misogynistic tweets posted on Twitter come from women, a study suggests [So this is women who hate all women? - Man Hating Abounds].

Over a three-week period, the Demos think tank counted the number of uses of two particular words as indicators of misogyny.
It found evidence of large-scale misogyny, with 6,500 unique users targeted by 10,000 abusive tweets in the UK alone.
Twitter boss Jack Dorsey has said that tackling abuse is a priority.
Oh, and what about misandry? What about feminist hashtags such as #killallmen?

Theresa May must go. She's every bit as bad as David Cameron when it comes to women's issues and not giving a damn about men.

And if some women are ultra-sensitive as to what may go on when they're on the internet, stay away from contentious sites and have a nice cuppa instead. Same goes for men.

Terri! Terri! Terri! OUT! OUT! OUT!

Tuesday, 12 June 2018

Julie Bindel - Misandrist - Putting Woman Above The Law

Julie Bindel actively dislikes men - we're not just talking as life partners or lovers here - we're talking about men full stop. So much so she is a radical feminist.

And she oozes hatred.

And, of course, she would say she wrote the above tweet 'ironically' - I'm sure she'd smirk that only a 'man baby' could be offended by such a thing. Wrong, Ms Bindel, it's hate and it's wrong and if a man wrote that about women you'd be screaming your head off.

Ms Bindel, of The Justice For Women Organisation, seems to believe that all the stops should be pulled out to prevent women being subjected to justice when a crime is committed. In the case we are about to look at, we discover that excuses were made, evidence was blurred, unsubstantiated and inconsistent and would not have stood up in an episode of that vintage TV series Crown Court, let alone in real life.

The case in question is that of a murderer called Emma Humphreys.

Emma, like many young murderers, had a pretty low life. And after she'd stabbed a man through the heart in 1985, she seemed resigned to a life sentence. Until she heard of Ms Bindel and her 'Justice For Women' organisation in the early 1990s.

Now, we could say that many young men who commit murder come from troubled backgrounds. They do. But there is no 'Justice For Men' organisation, is there?

And a lot of Ms Bindel's purpose in life seems to be to demonise men and sanctify women.

This describes the whole case in detail:

She [Emma Humphreys] appears to have been resigned to serving a life sentence, and being paroled on licence at some point. However, on September 24, 1992, she wrote to Julie Bindel of the misnamed Justice For Women organisation. She appears to have heard of them through the press, in particular the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, which was currently before the courts. (This organisation is the brainchild of airhead feminist Bindel and her lesbian lover Harriet Wistrich, the latter of whom tried unsuccessfully to have Alexander Economou thrown into gaol for having the temerity to protest his innocence when falsely accused of rape by a woman who was nearly as demented as Humphreys).

Coincidentally, like Humphreys, Ahluwalia had lived in Canada, and had in fact married there. One night in May 1989 while her husband was asleep, she poured two pints of petrol into a bucket, threw it over him, then set him on fire. Assisted by neighbours he was taken to hospital, but died six days later. Ahluwalia was convicted of murder, but in July 1992, the Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and ordered a retrial. The day after Humphreys’ letter, Ahluwalia pleaded guilty to manslaughter and walked free time served. The merits or otherwise of that case will not be discussed here, it will suffice to say that it differed significantly from this one. While there is no doubt that Ahluwalia suffered at the hands of her husband for years, her calculated act does not have even the pretext of spontaneity which is usually required for a successful defence of provocation. By the same token, there is no credible evidence that Humphreys was ever seriously assaulted by much less raped by her victim, as we shall see in due course.

After her initial letter, Justice For Women swung quickly into action, and her case went to the Court of Appeal in June 1995; the following month a manslaughter conviction was substituted for her murder conviction. Like Ahluwalia three years previously, she walked free time served, although unlike Ahluwalia there was no retrial. As she left the Royal Courts of Justice she was surrounded by cheering crowds of wimmin, and treated like a genuine heroine, yet it wasn’t to last. Three years later she was dead, and by that time although they will never admit it, even Julie Bindel and Harriet Wistrich had grown tired of her.

Read the full story here. Imagine just how safe we'd all feel if Julie Bindel's type of 'logic' was applied to all of her beloved gender. And just how safe we'd feel that every manipulative, drugged out and just plain DISHONEST excuse was accepted to put murderers back on our streets. Just because they have vaginas. It already happens, folks.

Wednesday, 6 June 2018

Misandry At Wikipedia

Click on image for larger view, as Wikipedia refutes all claims that men have any rights to speak up. It's just loss of privileges and stuff - that's all - which prompt us to speak out. We need to shut up and look at things from the feminist perspective. Yeah. Right. Thank you.

Jimmy Wales must have been an impossible idealist if he thought that an on-line encyclopaedia in which anybody could write anything would be a good idea. Of course, we are assured, Wikipedia is monitored by editors and administrators who ensure that the information you read is accurate. Well, it isn't, I can assure you.

Even many basic facts are suspect.

But when it comes to issues like equal rights for men and boys, Wikipedia is a nightmare. According to one editor who is called 'ian.thomson' we should  'step away from our rage-totem' (good gracious! Whatever's that?!!) and 'try studying the [sic] feminism from a feminist perspective'.

Um, but an encyclopaedia is supposed to be impartial, not begin an article from a feminist (or any other) perspective.

Despite repeated calls to play fair, the article page remains a mare's nest of misandrist tripe.

Poor Jimmy Wales.

Didn't work, your idea, did it, mate?

Take a look at the Men's rights movement Talk Page at Wikipedia.

Saturday, 2 June 2018

Coronation Street? Misandry Street, Surely?

Elsie and Arnold Tanner: 'You left me because you wanted to and I was glad to get shot of you! And in the 1990s it will turn out that you hit me as well so I had to let you go. I'm a soap heroine and our circumstances change as society grows more misandrist! You're probably a serial killer now!'

The TV and radio soaps have joined the misandry-a-go-go merry-go-round with glee. From Dolly Skilbeck wittering on about women and the vote and making the wise old male character Sam Pearson look a fool in Emmerdale Farm in the early 1980s, to Deirdre of Corrie wittering on about the 'terrible things men do to women' in the late 1980s, to the avalanche of soapy male serial killers and swines in the modern day, the soaps are seriously anti-male. Sponsored by the Fawcett Society? We wouldn't be surprised!

When I was a lad, I read the Coronation Street novels by HV Kershaw and sometimes wrote to Eric Rosser, the Street's archivist back then. The Coronation Street novels are marvellous - set in the 1960s, they reveal the original production team's vision of the characters, including one infamous drop-in, Arnold Tanner. Arnold was the father of Elsie's children, Linda and Dennis, and a weak and feckless man.

But he wasn't a violent man.

Then came Daran Little, the Street's archivist of the 1990s, and suddenly Arnold was vilified further - he'd actually slapped Elsie way back in the war years! Nobody had told Eric Rosser or HV Kershaw. I could never imagine a man slapping Elsie - not without her hitting him back. In fact, when it came to violence, I thought Elsie would probably have been the one to initiate it. Remember the way she attacked Ray Langton onscreen in the Rovers in the 1970s, with a heavy ashtray in her handbag? And she was very near to clobbering Ena Sharples a few times too.

But, of course, in the 1990s, violence was seen as something only men do to women, and so Elsie's past was ret-conned - so that Arnold had actually hit her.

Nonsense. In no way did this represent the character shown in the Street's early episode, or in HV Kershaw's novels, or in the original character outline kept by Eric Rosser.

Far better that the original characters are left as they were intended, not blurred through some priggish modern day lens.

I stopped watching the Street in the 1990s as the misandry and violence slid higher and higher up the scale. Weak and silly men and strong women had been fun. But the shaggy dog became too darned shaggy as the White Knight chivalry of men like Daran Little became far too prevalent and the men became impossibly nasty - or, as always, simply weak and silly.

The Street lost it about the same time society did.

Try reading some Erin Pizzey, chuck!

Thursday, 31 May 2018

Rachel Reeves - Misandrist - What's Genitalia Got To Do With It?

Ms Rachel Reeves, MP, believes that female genitalia is a highly important quality for a role on the Bank of England's rate-setting committee - and that the interviewing of both genders for the role should have been a mere cover before employing somebody with said genitalia.
We are, of course, misquoting fabulous Tina Turner's 1980s hit song in our post title, but honestly - Rachel Reeves staggers us. Her over-identification with people who have female genitalia is staggering!
The Bank of England's rate-setting committee interviewed 44 women and 43 men and employed a man on merit.
The fact he will have a penis rather than a vagina really doesn't come into it and will not alter his ability to do the job.
Ms Reeves, do grow up. You cannot claim to represent all women just because you are one - and the fact that the vast majority of women do not identify as feminists speaks volumes.
From the (always highly misandrist) BBC:
The Treasury’s failure to appoint a woman to the Bank of England’s rate-setting committee is “truly staggering”, the chair of the Business Committee said.
Rachel Reeves made the comment in response to Prof Jonathan Haskel’s appointment to the Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).
Prof Haskel’s appointment means there is still only one woman on the MPC. 
The Treasury said the role had been awarded on merit.
The department insisted it was “committed to diversity and encouraging the broadest range of candidates”.
Enough said. And fair enough. Pop your rattle back into your pram, Ms Reeves. After all, women are not exactly queuing up for the dangerous jobs, are they? It's still mainly men in the glass cellar. And yet a person with a vagina could carry out the work just as well as a person with a penis.

Monday, 28 May 2018

Caroline Dinenage - Another Twisted Misandrist

Caroline Dinenage has smirked at male issues for a long time and appears to be in love with herself and her gender. She once said (with a trademark smirk) that some women believed international men's day was every day. How so? Ignorance of male health issues? Glass cellar job fatalities? Parenting rights? Lack of support for male victims of domestic violence? The male suicide rate? Male genital mutilation in this country?

This Government is full of misandrists - and care minister Caroline Dinenage is just another of those. While many of us know that the whole of society is garnered towards 'SHE', Dinenage denigrates the work of dedicated male doctors, who work longer hours, and says, of course this is all down to 'inequality'. Sadly, Ms Dinenage, choosing motherhood is a lifestyle choice and caring responsibilities are not the preserve of women only.

We cannot have doctors beggaring about and not being available, not being able to commit to study, etc. We need our doctors to be AVAILABLE and we need a value for money health service.

We all know that the gender pay gap is not a gender pay gap. We all know that people like Caroline Dinenage peddle this myth knowing that the gap is purely based on hours worked and qualifications gathered. We all know she is a LIAR. The gap cannot fairly be closed without equal hours worked and equal dedication to career progression. If women make lifestyle choices that make equal pay impossible, then it is their choice to let hubby bring home all or most of the bacon.

And as for suffrage, we also know that huge numbers of men didn't have the vote either, and died fighting in wars they had to fight for governments they could not elect or deselect.

From 'The Times':

A health minister has dubbed the NHS the “National He Service” as the government begins a review into the gender pay gap in medicine.

Caroline Dinenage, the care minister, said that the health service “needs to do much more to level the playing field for its senior staff”. [J4MB: In what ways is the playing field not already level?]

Today the government will announce a review by Professor Jane Dacre, president of the Royal College of Physicians, into what drives the gap and potential solutions.

“It is hard to avoid a lingering suspicion that the NHS, in some cases, still stands for the National He Service,” Ms Dinenage said in an online article for The Times.

“This is a profoundly important issue, not just in terms of fairness and equality but also in terms of how we create the strongest and safest healthcare system we can.

“And to do that, we need to make sure NHS organisations are inclusive and able to extract the talent of their workforce. My view is that gender pay equality is a litmus test for that — and on that measure all the evidence suggests that the NHS needs to do much better.”

Male doctors receive basic pay of £67,788 compared with £57,569 for female doctors, and male consultants are four times more likely to be paid a bonus than their female counterparts.

A century on from women first getting the vote, Ms Dinenage said that the most appropriate tribute to the work of suffragists would be parity between the sexes “in our pay cheques”. The NHS has a gap of 23 per cent, despite women outnumbering men in its workforce.

The gap is driven because highly paid male doctors make up a bigger proportion of the male cohort than well-paid female doctors do of the female cohort.

Launching the review, Jeremy Hunt, health and social care secretary, is expected to say: “The NHS holds a unique position in both British and global society as a shining beacon of equality among all, and so it is unacceptable that 70 years from its creation its own staff still face gender inequality.”

He will also say that he is determined to eliminate the gap for doctors.

More women enter the medical workforce than men. At present there are 3,418 female doctors in their first year of training after medical school, compared with 2,745 men. However, at the top of the career ladder there are more men than women, with 31,290 male consultants compared with 17,317 female consultants.

The review will consider what might stop a female doctor progressing in the same way as her male colleagues, including working patterns, the impact of motherhood or caring responsibilities, and geographical factors.

Absolutely monstrous.

Sunday, 27 May 2018

Justice Secretary David Gauke - Misandrist Of The Month

There's something so rotten about the smug, middle class men in power exercising chivalry towards the ladies. Here's David Gauke:

He said: "I think we do have to be conscious that sometimes there are different issues with women offenders than there are with men.
"A lot of female offenders, for example, are themselves victims of crime, quite a high proportion are victims of domestic abuse themselves… a lot of them are non-violent, a lot of them [have] complex mental health issues we need to address.
"I think there is a very good point in saying that of the 4,000 or so female offenders who are in custody, how many of them can be dealt with through other means?"
And many men are victims of crime and domestic abuse themselves, non-violent, and have complex mental health issues. And receive less support than women even before becoming criminals.

David Gauke seems to be saying that men are just bad, but with women there are often mitigating circumstances.
What gives David Gauke the right to play God and decide that people with vaginas deserve special consideration?
If there is such a thing as a Patriarchy this is how it acts - penalising men while looking out for the 'ladies' and letting manipulative vile people out on the streets - just because they don't have a penis.

The Crown Prosecution Service already has a history of favouring women criminals. Ever heard of Berlinah Wallace? Read this - Justice For Men And Boys.

Monday, 14 May 2018

Work Dress Codes - Discrimination Against Men, Pampering Women...

All the 'ladies' comfortable in their work-wear? Fine. Who cares about the gentlemen - sorry, I mean men?

Just read that the Women And Equalities Misandry Committee in the UK Parliament has moved to pamper women even further by insisting that they are allowed to wear more or less what they like at work while leaving men uncomfortable and heavily regulated.

This speaks much of the self interested and self-pampering nature of female politicians, the gross pandering of White Knights, and the complete inconsideration of men's comfort, as usual.

In many work places, uniform is quite strict - for men and women. But the women get to wear their own blouses or a comfortable top, while the men get to wear a collared shirt with conventional or clip-on tie - and that is insisted on even in hot weather.

It is uncomfortable at the best of times, but in hot weather it is murder.

Once again, women, who apparently cannot bear the slightest discomfort, have been screaming 'sexism' about what they have to wear, and, poor unequal, put-upon, weak, little darlings, have won the sympathy of their 'sisters' and White Knights in parliament (Women and Equalities indeed - how sexist can you get?!).

Gross. Simply gross. The self interest of women in power is proving to be a very worrying trend indeed.

Thursday, 10 May 2018

Big Ms Emily Thornberry

Emily Thornberry, Islington lady of leisure and bees-in-the-bonnet, or MP, as they're often called, has started a stink about something so controversial I don't know how we'll survive.

The Roger Hargreaves Mr Men books are sexist.

Yes, they call girls 'Little Miss', and they call boys 'Mr' and they call girls and boys nasty names. There's Mr Nosey, Mr Chatterbox, Little Miss Chatterbox, etc.

Well, Ms Thornberry doesn't mind about the boys being called names, of course, but girls - poor sensitive flowers! And calling them 'little' - EEEKKK!!!

Because feminists believe that women are strong and fantastic and do all that men do.

Well, they're strong and fantastic, just as men are, but often in different ways, and the fact that Mr Men rescue little Misses in some of the stories is not sexist. It's simply down to the fact that boys/men are usually physically stronger. This is down to goodness knows how many years of men doing all the hard physical toil - you know, on construction sites, in the mines and sewers. The Glass Cellar jobs in fact, which account for why over 90% of workplace deaths are male.

And the fact that feminists consistently try to infantilize women - making them out to be shrinking violets who need constant protection and 'women only' shortlists to get anywhere.

After fifty years of strident feminism, the 'laydeez' still don't want the Glass Cellar jobs - but baulk at any positive qualities attributed to hard working men. In fact to men at all.

Ms Thornberry says she'd like to be called 'Ms Trouble'. Well, 'Ms Misandrist' would be more appropriate ('Big, not 'Little', of course) or even Ms Pampered-Misandrist. Better still - posher too, nicely double barrelled. Very Islington indeed!

Monday, 23 April 2018

Warren Farrell - 'The Myth Of Male Power'

Dr Warren Farrell, author of the Myth of Male Power, first published in 1993, has many fascinating things to say.

'There is what might be called a Catch-22 of hazardous occupations: the more hazardous the job, the more men; the more men, the less we care about making the job safer. The Catch-22 of hazardous occupations creates a 'glass cellar' which few women wish to enter.'

'All women's issues are to some degree men's issues and all men's issues are to some degree women's issues because when either sex wins unilaterally both sexes lose.'

See here for more on the Myth of Male Power

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Sadiq Khan - Flies In The Face Of The Obvious And Statistics To Promote his Elitist Populist Views...

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, has stated in a speech to the Fabian Society that women accusing men of sexual harassment must be believed. No need for investigation or trial. The man is guilty.

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, disbelieves sources like the Office For National Statistics. He refuses to accept what is happening all around him. Here's some of a speech he gave to the Fabian Society in January - and our replies inserted in red. Yes, we've been red-pilled thoroughly! 

In his first major speech of 2018, Sadiq Khan will warn that for the first time in his life gender equality could stall – or even go backwards – as populism gains strength.

Um, women live longer than men, receive fewer/shorter custodial sentences, have all women short-lists, have more parenting rights, don't work 'glass cellar jobs', can destroy men's lives with unsubstantiated claims... which gender are we talking about, Mr Khan?

Addressing the Fabian Society New Year conference this morning, Sadiq will point out that populism “plays on people’s worst fears and creates space for extreme views on immigration, diversity and equality.”

He will condemn the idea that campaigns for equality and diversity are political correctness gone mad, he will point to the example of the US which has seen a recent rise in anti-feminist movements. Across the Atlantic, the use of ‘snowflake’ or ‘social justice warrior’ have become pejorative terms that effectively shut down debate, and more and more people have tried to dismiss the gender pay gap as a myth…

Um, it IS a myth. The gender pay gap is due to hours worked and life style choices, not down to individual companies paying different salaries to people of different genders doing exactly the same hours and jobs. The Office For National Statistics and the Institute for Economic Affairs both say so. I even put a post on here ages ago requesting that women who are doing the same job and hours as a male colleague and being paid less e-mail me, and, of course, provide proof. Replies have come there none.

The Office For National Statistics states:

‘the gender pay gap figures … do not show differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs, as they are affected by factors such as the proportion of men and women working part-time or in different occupations’.

Also, feminist groups dismiss men who debate their claims as "misogynistic", "sexist" and even "rapey". Pejorative terms designed to shut down debate.
On with Mr Khan's speech:
“Anti-feminist movements are on the rise – as part of a concerted attempt to roll back progress on rights for minority groups…

Um, women ARE NOT a minority group and discrimination against men is rife in a way it NEVER was towards women. From life expectancy to being expected to do the glass cellar jobs from parenting rights to custodial sentences it is men who are discriminated against.
“We’ve seen the impact of this in the US and we cannot allow this narrative to take hold in Britain. It’s the responsibility of us in this room to redouble our efforts and to fight back. We all have a responsibility as progressives to continue the fight for gender equality.”
We do. And that includes gender equality for males.
“Another cultural shift we need to see is for men to become better allies so that when women speak out about sexual harassment – men listen, believe and act."
No way! Unsubstantiated claims must be investigated. To assume that someone is speaking the truth simply because of their gender is totally discriminatory and highly dangerous. Innocent until proven guilty!
The 'populism' Sadiq speaks of is actually projection. There are is a huge gender bias against men, but Sadiq speaks simply to appeal to the beliefs of his own 'enlightened' clique. Ordinary people have spotted the glaring inequalities suffered by men. Sadiq ignores it and uses his own brand of populism. Some of the things he says, like the last quote above, are frightening. Vote for Sadiq!
But remember that what he says is not backed up by the facts. For every couple of thousand female misandrists, you can probably reckon on about a hundred or so misandrist males - like Sadiq. Comfortably off, chivalrous, and not giving a damn about men worse off than them (the vast majority).

Sunday, 15 April 2018

Dany Cotton - Slags Off Male Firefighters - "hairy arsed"

Dany Cotton wants to change the height, gender and hairiness of firefighters: "We have to change that perception of a six foot hairy-arsed bloke who can kick a door down.” No thanks, Dany. I think you are thin lipped and sly-eyed. And you say horrible things. I don't trust you. Not that I'm being personal, of course. I mean, I'm sure you're arse isn't hairy.

Let's say we were to describe what we thought about our firemen. Brave? Heroic? Strong? Kind? Self sacrificing? Yes, those words do spring to mind. But not to Dany Cotton, head of the London Fire Brigade who, in her own words, got the job simply because she was the only woman applying for it.

No, Dany has described the image of firemen as "hairy arsed".


Outrageously sexist, bigoted bilge? Very much so. And failing in any way to respect the marvellous job our firemen do. It's also a gender specific insult. To be frank, I've known several hairy arsed females, but it's not something one usually associates with the gender.

I mean, Dany, women have their own peculiar physical quirks that could be used against them, but then, of course you'd scream 'SEXIST!'

Misandrist and obviously not particularly bright, Dany Cotton did not get her job because she was the best for it. She got it because she was the only woman who applied. In her own words:

'For every single rank promotion I’ve got I have been told, every single time, that I’m going to get the job because I’m the only woman on the panel – even the job I’ve got now. Which is quite bizarre, really.'

Not really, Dany. You surely wouldn't get any where if you were judged on fair mindedness and lack of bigotry.

This woman has insulted thousands of hard working, brave and selfless men. If women were the vast majority in this job, the plaudits would be heard day and night.

And would Dany be making fun of them?

This woman is a disgrace.