While the site often covers news and articles, it is always happy to put notices up as well such as this:-
MRA Comedy Writing Group in London Seeks Collaborators
If you're a pro-equality MRA (male or female), and able to attend a weekly brainstorming meeting in Central London on a Tuesday Evening for two hours, we would like to hear from you - our mission: To manufacture the ultimate MRA stand up comedian.
A lot of comedians appear to be MRAs at heart, but can usually only manage about two jokes on the subject before moving to safer ground. For a standup to deliver solely MRA material for several minutes will be a challenge - but we have a unique plan to get the most out of the group dynamic, to produce material far beyond the sum of our parts. You may be good with concepts and set-ups, or you may be good with language, or you may be good with punch-lines. Whatever you have to offer, we would like to hear from you.
If interested, email with a little bit about yourself - and please have a go at completing in your own way, the following sayings:-
Behind every great man... ? A woman needs a man like a... ? Boys will be... ?
No woman... ? It's a man's... ? Hell hath no fury... ?
He has also said that he does not get paid "to make a one our pre-recorded show can take about 6 hours of work. To show your support, phone the station on023 92 77 99 22 during office hours and say so. The more calls, the more prominence men’s issues get."
Enjoy listening and support John in his great work.
Monday night saw the broadcast of an hour long BBC Four documentary on the extreme feminist group the London Feminist Network.
Being a BBC programme the best method they could come up with to tackle such a topic in a fair, balanced and neutral way was to ask Vanessa Engle to make the programme (and the whole series for that matter). Engle is of course a feminist herself, the Daily Telegraph notes she "was involved in the women’s movement while at Oxford studying languages in the 1980s; she protested outside porn shops, joined the Reclaim the Night march against male violence". These exact same protests are featured in the programme so she's effectively making a programme about herself. Presumably this will be followed by an investigation into the BNP presented by Nick Griffin and an IRA expose by Martin McGuiness? When the BBC cover Men's issues we invariably get exactly the opposite situation, with the like of Women's Aid supporter Fiona Bruce interrogating Father 4 Justice in an an incredibly hostile manner in breach of BBC rules.
Although the programme may have been conceived as 60 minutes of free prime time advertising for the London Feminist network, if you can stomach the misandry, constant pro feminist bias not to mention abysmal songs then you'll actually find it was quite enlightening in places.
The first signs of dissent from the militant feminist dogma in the programme came from a male, one of the girl's fathers. Whilst his wife rambles on, equating child pornography with lads mags and pretty much anything sexual, he's brave enough to put forward the entirely reasonable argument that there's actually nothing wrong with prostitution so long as both parties are happy and consenting to the transaction. Strangely, such an argument seems hugely radical, controversial and out of place at that point of the broadcast due to the extreme anti-male atmosphere of the organisation being discussed. I suppose it's a bit like going to church and pointing out the lack of evidence of the existence of God.
The programme was full of the usual nonsensical feminist cliches, with the group so keen to "end violence against women" and to "take back the night". Some went further, their only concern being the rather narrow subject of "men's violence against women". Given the rates of recorded domestic violence by lesbian females, never mind the countless male domestic violence victims out here, this is clearly not only sexist but extremely stupid too.
It was particularly ironic to feature a feminist group located in London complaining about violence against women as apparently such a huge issue so much more important than any other. If we look at the epidemic of teen violence in the city, there were 27 teens killed in 2008, with just one of those unfortunate people being female - 96.3% of victims were male. The previous year again again saw 27 victims, and there were a slightly more significant three female victims ton his occasion. However one should remember that feminists only count violence against women if it's perpetrated by a man, therefore under LFN logic a third of such victims are to be ignored do the the killers being of the wrong sex.
It's certainly true that our streets are rather dangerous places, but it's women who are the safest out on them, and men need to reclaim them far, far more than any other group. Yet there's further hypocrisy from LFN. Not only do they ignore all the evidence and pretend that it's only women need to reclaim the night, men are even barred from marching . They are neither allowed to reclaim the night from themselves nor are they even welcome in helping to achieve fundamentally flawed and sexist goal of reclaiming it just for women.
The ridiculousness of such a situation was beautifully illustrated in a bizarre discussion of how the LFN members could identify those awful men in order to prevent them from taking part. It was noted that they do indeed allow men who "identify as women", to participate, though only certain men are allowed to benefit from this loophole and the feminists had to use their judgement as to who qualified for such a privilege. The problem of actual women who looked like men also arose (unsurprising given the androgynous appearance of so many of the participants) with "caution" and "sensitivity" urged. In reality there is of course a very simple and elegant solution to all these complicated "problems", that being to simply stop being so incredibly sexist and discriminatory and let make everyone in society welcome instead! Surely you can't get any more sensitive than that?
Another telling exchange came in an interview with a older member of the group, who discussed her reasons for being an activist. She stated that she had been motivated to join the group as a result of the police' repines to a friend of her daughter being "gang raped". Watching the piece, alarm bells immediately start to ring as she stumbles through the facts rather uncertainly, eventually informing us the supposed "victim" actually received a caution for falsely alleging rape (albeit one she managed to later overturn using a lawyer). Obviously I don't know the facts of the case other than what this rather biased party tell us. However, given that the accused actually had video evidence of consent (not to mention the feminist's ramblings about a woman's supposed lack of choices when in such a situation), I'd say it sounds absolutely like a case of regretting sex after the event and thus a clear false rape allegation. The police are incredibly reluctant to charge someone with making a false rape claim and insist on massive amounts of proof in most cases. The main travesty that I can see here is that a mere caution is vastly insufficient punishment for such a serious crime. Those falsely alleging rape should either be let off if there isn't sufficient proof, or tried in a court of law and face a jail sentence where their guilt can be proven. A caution really isn't appropriate under any circumstances, and if the police were "vile" to anyone as she alleges, then it was surely to the victims of the false accusations. Further still, to use what appears to be a false rape case (and one with multiple victims at that) to be your sole reason for being an activist really is quite strange at best and certainly isn't going to make any useful contribution to ones "sanity" as she believes.
Such a lack of concern with the facts isn't unique to the older activists either. A younger feminist called Laurie, one of the "leading lights of the organisation", later discusses the despair she feels when reading items in the news, specifically citing the case of a man who branded his wife with an iron who only received a two month jail sentence for the offence. She then informs us that this could be "a made up story" and "even though she might have made it up it's probably true". Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that in a population of 60 million people such a story would almost certainly occur eventually, just as monkeys randomly hitting typewriter keys may eventually produce passages from Shakespeare. However it's rather bizarre to see someone so committed to such a cause have such a lack of concern for knowledge and the facts to such an extent they are reduced to fabricating imaginary abuses of women in order to make their point. I'm sure myself and other readers here could list at least 20 key MRA related injustices that have been in the news (or not in a few cases) which are important to the MRA movement. There wouldn't be any need for exaggeration let alone total fabrication of stories just because they might have happened somewhere or may well do so in the future. The exchange against shows us the unique culture of LFN, where facts really don't matter in the slightest - you just have to be a believer.
Anger and the hatred of men are recurring themes throughout the broadcast. Men are not only banned from the marches, not to mention the organisation itself, but the group even meets at a women only bar! In fact men were notably absent from vast swathes of the programme. Now I do realise that extreme gender feminist groups tend to feature vastly disproportionate numbers of lesbians compared to the population as a whole, but such a figure can't be more than 50%. Where were the male partners of the heterosexual feminists? It's clear that a display of such hatred and contempt for the opposite sex isn't the best technique to use in the search for a partner (unless perhaps one is seeking a self-loathing man). Presumably most of the woman were therefore single as a result of their activities, perhaps the feminist equivalent of a celibate catholic priest.
It wasn't just men who were invisible during the programme either. Almost all the feminists seem rather privileged, educated, middles class and white. I don't necessarily have any major issue with this usually, but remember we're talking about an organisation who subscribe absolutely to the exact sort of nonsense we hear coming out of the EHRC on a daily basis. Further still, given that London is about the most ethnically diverse city on the planet it seems incredible that not a single ethnic minority was to be seen anywhere in the organisation, particularly given that so many feminists issues have a vastly greater impact on such people (with many absolutely exclusive to immigrant communities). Presumably such ethnic minorities are fully aware of the stupidity and tremendous harm caused by excluding members based on their appearance and inherent characteristics and thus find a group practising such discrimination to be wholly unattractive as a result?
The most intersecting segment of the programme involved a discussion with two rather more level headed young feminists who had attended the LFN conference. They concluded the group wasn't for them as they didn't share the same extreme views on banning pornography and outlawing prostitution. One might of thought that such differences shouldn't really matter so much as they're still feminists, right? Well that's not the case at all - you see, as these two women point out, if you want to join the LFN you have to agree with everything they say hook, line and sinker, it's all or nothing as far as they're concerned. It's not just those horrible men that aren't welcome at LFN, other equally contemptible enemies include actual concepts such as debate, opinion, and dissent.
In conclusion, the programme shows exactly how not to conduct oneself as an activist. It revealed feminism at it's very worst, not as a movement concerned with equality, humanity or compassion, but instead showed us feminism the religion. The London Feminist Network were just as angry, bigoted, emotional, devoid of logic and reason as almost any religious institution or cult. We had women as the chosen ones, with men and sex as the devil. Unbelievers we not welcome whatsoever, with debate limited to how best to exclude men. Just as with so many religions they were keen to interfere with and control the lives of women happily going about their lives, whether it be fashion models happily raking in a fortunes for magazine shoots, or the many women happily reliving gullible men of handfuls of money at strip clubs. Fortunately the only real difference here compared to other religions was the size of the congregation, which I'm pleased to say was tiny in this case. Lets just hope it stays that way for many more years to come for the sake of both men and women and society as a whole.
The last post on quotas received much comment and as Thomas pointed out in a post Christine Odone quotas are being called for to increase the number of female scientists. It is not just boardrooms.
The issue runs much deeper because as pointed out before the Equalities Bill will do much damage to men and much has been in place for a long time but has never really been challenged. Even in a recession when more men have lost their jobs than women (see this section for previous posts on employment).
For example, one contributor has pointed out that Lloyds TSB bank, now merged with Halifax Bank of Scotland has its very own positive action programmes for women (positive action means negative action for someone else - basic maths) and a women's network. Often it is not direct, it is discrimination by omission where management courses and special training courses are made available to all but men. They do not say so directly but men are left off the list.
A white boy from a rough council estate has hardly more advantages in life than a girl educated at public school, but according to Lloyds Banking Group he has.
The problem with this tokenism and discrimination is again down to the fact that in the age of political correctness we are not treated as individuals, only as members of groups. Some men will need help to get on the management ladder and some women will not need the help, but that does not matter at Lloyds Banking Group, it is your gender that matters. Excluded men also find their wives/girlfriends/daughters indirectly discriminated as well - second hand discrimination.
With so many more women now joining the professions than men partly due to better exam results and partly due to 'extra help', along with the recession and anti-male society we live in, men are becoming more and more marginalised. Quotas and positive action programmes ensure this will continue.
Over the past year the issue of introducing female quotas into the boardroom of UK companies has been bubbling under the surface, and now it soon will be here as the Government has submitted evidence into the Financial Reporting Council (a body that sets the overall rules as to how boards of plc's should work) asking them to find a way to increase female representation.
This follows the lead of Norway who introduced a legally binding 40% quota for their boardrooms, with Spain following in 2009, then France (1 and 2) this year plus German firm Deutsche Telekom. Italy and Holland may also follow.
This issue was brought to life in the UK becausepeople like Harriet Harman and the institutional oxymoron ,the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, blamed the financial crisis on men, declaring it avoidable if there were less men running banks.
Quotas are wrong because they undermine the basic principles of a liberal democracy where everyone is equal and to be judged equally. Their gender, race etc is irrelevant. Bringing in quotas would mean that some people (men) would be denied a position on the Board solely because of their gender, not what they could offer. This is discrimination. As mentioned before, it affects their wives/girlfriends and daughters and sisters and mothers, as men do not live in isolation.
The way the UK Government is undertaking this is very subtle and pernicious. It has already built in discrimination against men at all levels of employment through the Equalities Act but rather than deal with the boardroom issue with a sledgehammer like other countries, it is trying to influence those who make business rules. These rules (known as the Combined Code) are based on what is known as a "Comply or Explain" whereby companies only have to explain why they do not adhere to the rules and it is up to shareholders to then vote them down.
The issue is that if these quotas are accepted by the Financial Reporting Council, they then become the normal way that companies have to behave. They would do so to avoid the risk of shareholder censure or simply having their reputation dragged through the mud by Harman and others. Once it is the norm then it makes easier for any quota rules to be passed through Parliament.
The Government's proposals like, all their anti-male proposals, are the thin end of the wedge. They seem 'harmless' to many at the time but once the inch has been taken, it will be soon be a mile.
The BBC's discussion programme "The Big Questions" on Sunday 14th March will be covering both the issues of anonymity of those accused of rape and also "whether children needs fathers".
Obviously the wording of that second question is hugely disturbing and ridiculous, very much along the lines of their "should homosexuals face execution" debate from a while back. I hope they're just being provocative again rather than showing their true views. Still it's hugely encouraging to see such important topics getting a look in for once. The quite brilliant Ray Barry of Father 4 Justice will be one of the guests, so I'm sure it will be well worth watching.
Yesterday evening the publicly funded BBC took the unprecedented step of banning men from the audience of BBC's Question Time programme as a way of "celebrating" International Women's Week (I always though it was Women's Day, but obviously there wasn't enough time to fit in all the misandry). The only men present were the host and two people on the panel, the Sun's Kelvin McKensie and the BBC's own Monty Don. Other panelists included the rather reasonable Jo Swinson of the Lib Dems, Conservative Justine Greening, and the Labour's quite hideous Carloine Flint.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the programme were not so much the topics discussed, but the unstated parallel that could be drawn throughout almost every single one of them. We had the Jamie Bulgar case discussed as well as the fact a man had been falsely accused of being his killer on Facebook (he has been forced into hiding and currently fears for his life). Later there was an intense discussion on the death of troops in Afghanistan due poor quality equipment being provided by the government, as well as the countless horrific injuries caused to survivors. We had mentions of the children horrifically tortured in Edlington there was an extensive discussion of the case of David Askew, a man with learning difficulties who died yesterday having being bullied over many years.
So what's the parallel between every single noteworthy discussion of the week? Well rather ironically in this era of so much supposed "violence against women" and oppression and the resulting need for women only this and that, almost every single victim of every issue discussed throughout the entire hour was male. With just one exception every UK soldier killed in Afghanistan has been male. Similarly all the domestic vicitms of violence and murder discussed were male too, and we even had the key MRA issue of false allegations given a mention on top of all that!
Clearly it's hardly surprising that so many vicitms of violence were men given the vastly greater threat of violence they their daily lives compared to women and the resulting lower life expectancy. This was however a BBC programme we're taking about and it at least shows they perhaps can't control the questions the generally public want to ask to the same extent they censor so much other output. Also it was very refreshing to see that so many decent women in the audience aren't as misandric and self-obsessed as so many of their "elected" female sisters in Parliament, and so many clearly realise and are hugely concerned about the plight of men subconsciously at the very least.
The incredibly ironic theme of male victims continued right until the end of the programme, with a discussion of all women shortlists, and a quite magnificent older women in the audience (and others) condemning them as passionately and eloquently as anything you'll see on this blog.
One of the only two notable pieces of misandry we saw on the programme in fact came from a man in Monty Don, who suggested he'd be happy to see an all female parliament with no men in it at all as it couldn't' be any worse than the current lot (though it would seem he was playing to the crowd as much as giving a genuine opinion). This of course illustrates the idiocy of banning particular groups from an audience or any institution for that matter. It was clear the pressure of the all women audience not only influenced Don's answers, but also stifled McKensie at times too (albeit to a far lesser extent).
Thus there are useful lessons for us to take from the programme. Could Don have asked for a Parliament that excluded ethnic minorities
and got such a round of applause? His conduct illustrates just how misandry works in practice with sexist comments about men encouraged and going unchallenged. The make up of the event very much reflected the balance of genders one finds at the average primary school - where you have the odd token male teacher and token male parent against a sea of females. Further still, whatever anti male indiscretions occur in such an environment aren't subject to the scrutiny nor of millions watching at home on tv either and the resulting moderation of one's behaviour.
The most ill informed and sexist comment of the night came at the very end of the programme, with an audience member praising the fact men had been barred from taking part and suggesting that men could never organise their own International Men's Day as women have done. In reality there has in fact been an International Men's day for a number of years now, it's just that all the politicians we see week in week out on Question Time refuse to acknowledge and celebrate the event and the BBC are just as ignorant or dismissive of the event. If only we'd had some way for one of the many men behind International Men's Day to inform such ignorant parties of the existence of the event and it's importance? Maybe some sort of weekly nationally broadcast discussion forum, watched by millions where broadcasters, politicians and the members of the public of both sexes all come together and pool their knowledge and ideas in order to to be able to have an informed discussion of such issues?
I suppose given that gender segregation is so much on the increase these days this won't be the last time we see such misandry on the BBC. Kelvin McKensie at least stated he hoped not to see the sexist format return for anther 30 years. At the current rate the women on such a 2040 edition of Question Time will unfortunately be just as ignorant about International Men's Day as those taking part this evening.