Tickets are no longer available for Norwich screenings of ‘The Red Pill’

On Xmas Day – we rarely take holidays, at J4MB – we posted a piece about a Norwich screening on 18 January of The Red Pill, financed by a remarkable and generous man who lives there, Barry Wright. He was prepared not only to underwrite the cost of screening the film – tickets were free – but also to pay for travel and hotel accommodation for a number of the people who’ll be on the Q&A panel after the film, including Cassie Jaye, Paul Elam, Erin Pizzey and myself. (We’re still not sure if Dr RandomerCam will be attending.)

Such was the level of interest in the screening, that a second screening was laid on, for the following evening. Tickets are no longer available for either screening. I salute Barry for a remarkable achievement, and look forward to attending both screenings.

Soon after announcing the first screening, Barry announced a £7,500 fundraiser which, even if it hits the target, will not cover his costs. Yesterday evening it reached £700. I would strongly urge you to make a donation, if you can, even if it’s only for a small amount. What Barry has done here is remarkable, and it deserves the appreciation of all with an interest in men’s and boys’ human rights. Thank you.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Recruiting head teachers: the difficult question – one man, or two women?

On New Year’s Eve the Times published a lengthy piece by Nicola Woolcock, Education Correspondent, about the crisis faced by schools in recruiting and retaining head teachers. At no point did she touch on obvious gender-related explanations for the crisis. Our associated blog piece, with links to her article, is here.

A few points about education and the wider world:

1. Male unemployment has long been higher than female unemployment, yet taxpayer-funded initiatives focus on ‘encouraging’ women to enter traditionally male-dominated lines of work (£30 million is being spent on this doomed objective with respect to engineering alone). Men pay almost three-quarters of the income tax collected in the UK, which largely finance these feminist initiatives. Feminists are taxpayer-funded parasites.
2. From the point of leaving full-time education, women are more likely than men to either not engage in paid employment, or only work part-time.
3. For decades the education system has become ever more feminised, as the proportion of teachers who are women has risen.
4. Boys have been failing in the education system (relative to girls) since the ideologically-motivated replacement of O Levels by GCSEs in the 1987/8 academic year. We strongly recommend William Collins’s piece The Trouble with Boys in Education.
5. The current Education Secretary is Justine Greening, a lesbian, who’s also the Minister for Women and Equalities.
6. The Department of Education continues to take no interest in the educational under-achievement of men and boys. It is clear the department has no concerns about the matter, presumably seeing it as the inevitable consequence of its covert objective, the advantaging of women and girls.

Putting all these things together, would it be rational for measures to be taken to increase the number of male teachers, as well as male head teachers? Of course it would, which is why measures are being taken to increase the number of female head teachers, through job-sharing. This brings us to the latest article article by Nicola Woolcock for the Times, which appears to be sympathetic towards the idea (she’s certainly not critical of it).

It’s a short article, but raises many interesting issues. The full content is reproduced below, with my comments following:

The “brutal” pressure of running a school is leading some head teachers to share the job.

Younger women in senior leadership positions are applying for jobs together, creating part-time “co-headships” that allow them to juggle career and family.

Note the implied desirability of enabling women to “juggle career and family”, without reference to the impact on the work situation of such an inefficient arrangement.

Many governing bodies, however, are reluctant to appoint two people jointly to the top job.

We must applaud the common sense of those governing bodies.

Liz Robinson and Nicola Noble are co-heads at Surrey Square Primary School in Southwark. Ms [my emphasis] Robinson, 40, was its sole head until September 2014 when Mrs Noble, 36, joined her. Both work four days a week and have children aged three and five.

Note that this is a primary school, where pressures on head teachers are presumably markedly less than at secondary schools.

Ms Robinson said: “I’ve been a head teacher for 11 years and I approached Nicola about developing a co-headship…

Whoa! Hold the horses right there. This doesn’t seem to me to be an open and transparent process. Did the governing body approve this ‘approach’? Surely the school should have publicly advertised such a position? At the very least, maybe other teachers at the school might have been better qualified?

… The main factors were having children – it was about making the job sustainable as well as being a mum.”

Why was the job not ‘sustainable’, other than her personal decision to have children? What about the interests of the pupils, and the school?

“People ask, where does the buck stop, who makes the final decision? We make decisions together. You don’t go into a co-headship if you don’t share fundamental values and beliefs. We have different views [whilst sharing fundamental values and beliefs, obviously] but none we can’t navigate.”

Navigate? I think what she’s saying is that if and when the s*** hits the fan, neither of the women will take responsibility. When things go well, they’ll both take the credit.

Ms Robinson was 29 when she became a head. She also does coaching two days a week, including mentoring deputy and assistant heads [There are deputy AND assistant heads? What an excellent job creation scheme for women!] to take the next step.

She added: “It’s a way of making headship work for women [my emphasis] at a certain time in their lives. Women are under-represented as heads.”

So “Ms” Robinson things women are under-represented as heads. Quelle surprise. Hmm, might there be an explanation for this ‘under-representation’? Might it be the result of the disinclination of women to face pressure and responsibility, i.e. far fewer women than men are work-oriented (Catherine Hakim, Preference Theory, 2000)? Of course. She then goes on to admit as much, albeit not explicitly.

Of the pressures of the job, she said: “For some it’s not worth the hassle. Headship is totally brutal [Note: this is a primary school]: the accountability framework, Ofsted, the pace of change, the demands from parents, the layers of people you are responsible for – it’s extreme. [Let’s hope she never leads a platoon going into battle.] If things go wrong, there’s a “let’s sack the head” mentality. People talk about a recruitment crisis – I think there’s more of a retention crisis.

But there’s a difference in sharing the job – it’s fun because we work on the difficult stuff together. Otherwise it can be an isolating and lonely job.”

Well, here’s to you, Ms Robinson. Jesus loves… no, I digress. At taxpayer’s expense you’re having “fun” with Nicola, working “on the difficult stuff together”. And your job is no longer “isolating and lonely”, which generations of headmasters have somehow coped with, without whining.

Co-headship remains a relatively rare arrangement. Mrs Noble said: “Governing bodies are concerned about who is ultimately in charge. Our governors understood the need to think out of the box.”

My hunch is the governors had little choice but to accept the batty idea.

James Topp is chief executive of Ambition School Leadership which fast-tracks bright young teachers into headship roles. He is also chairman of governors at a school with two co-heads.

He said: “There are more people looking at it. It encourages women to return to work sooner after having children. [That’s a desirable objective?] Job shares are so normal in other industries, [are they?] I think it’s something that can be expanded.”

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Women: I want equality, but…

Our thanks to @CaptHaddock83

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Sophie Franklin, 30, office manager, went on £38,000 designer shopping spree with company credit card. Spared jail after a (male) judge says he ‘hates sending women to prison’.

Our thanks to HEqual for this.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

William Collins: Propaganda Rising

An interesting new piece in Backbencher.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Should men have a view on abortion?

I can’t recall when I last read a blog post as impressive as this, published on the ExInjuria website. There are references to our position on abortion, as outlined in our 2015 general election manifesto (pp.5,6), along with some insightful comments on them. But there’s so much more than that, and altogether it’s a remarkable article. In a moment I’ll add it to our Key posts section.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Lucy Reed: Parliament on domestic violence – it turns out it’s not so easy to ask the right questions…

Our thanks to Nick for pointing us to this. It’s a piece written by Lucy Reed, a Family Law barrister for over a decade, and it appears on her website, ‘Pink Tape’.

The piece concerns the issue of whether or not to allow people (men, almost always) to cross-examine their partners on such issues as alleged domestic violence. It’s a lengthy piece, but well worth reading. The start:

There was an important debate in Parliament today. The government was put on the spot about the scandalous cross examination of victims of rape by the perpetrators of such abuse. It is a shame that the video footage of the house shows so many MPs making a break for the cafe just as it started.

That this issue is being tackled (or is about to be tackled) is a good thing. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for people to wake up to it. But I have to say that the framing and depth of the debate about this really important issue leaves something to be desired. And it does not give me great confidence that the solution will necessarily resolve the real issue.

There is some real flabbiness of definition here : There is (still) no delineation between complainant and victim, accused and perpetrator, alleged abuser / rapist and actual abuser / rapist. This should not be too hard to grasp. The presumption of innocence should not be a novel concept for our elected representatives to grasp.

Many, maybe most, of the (mainly) men accused of domestic abuse are responsible for some level of bad behaviour. Some will be guilty as charged by their ex. In other cases there is a much exaggerated grain of truth at the heart of a schedule of allegations. And some, we cannot say how many, will be innocent.

But in this really important debate about how we do justice in the family courts, this debate that has had the attention of Parliament as it rightly should – we have forgotten those victims. The victims of false or grossly exaggerated charges made wilfully or through confabulation. Maybe it’s easier to see things from only one perspective, but this isn’t about what’s easier. How can we talk about justice if we can only talk about justice for one party?

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Will parties be fined for lack of female MPs? Commons committee wants at least 45% of candidates to be women.

Our thanks to Mike P for this, in the Daily Mail. A link to the Women and Equalities Committee web page on this matter is here. The committee’s report summary is here, the report’s conclusions and recommendations here, the full report here.

The start of the Daily Mail piece’s headline, ‘Will parties be fined for lack of female MPs?’, betrays ideological sympathy with the ridiculous Maria Miller MP, the chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee, and other feminists on the committee (i.e. all members other than the newly-appointed Philip Davies MP).

There is no lack of female MPs. It has long been known that the vast majority of people applying to be prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) are men. When I worked as a consultant for the Conservatives (2006-8) 90% of applicant were men. There is no question that women are over-represented as MPs compared with the proportion of applicants who are women. This has nothing to do with gender equality, and everything to do with privileging of women to give them well-paid high-profile jobs, regardless of merit.

Excerpts from the article:

The report also calls for an extension of the law on all-women shortlists to guarantee the selection of more female candidates…

Tory Party chairman Patrick McLoughlin told the committee that all-women shortlists caused ‘resentment’ and would not be adopted…

The committee says its ultimate goal is to achieve 50 per cent female MPs. But it says a legal target of 45 per cent is ‘reasonable’.

It also calls for an extension of all-women shortlist legislation, which is currently due to expire in 2030, and which does not cover new elected roles, such as police and crime commissioners.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Hold the front page. Woman is pregnant.

Give me strength. The headline on Heatstreet is, ‘First British Transgender Man Soon to Give Birth Thanks to Facebook Sperm Donor’. The child’s mother will in due course become his (or her) father.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Laura Perrins: Theresa May should realise the State is the problem, not the solution

The media has been full of reports that Theresa May plans a major investment in mental health services for children, to deal with rising levels of depression, anxiety, eating disorders etc. At no time has this leader of the Conservative party – a party which has been ‘conservative’ in name only, for many years – shown any enthusiasm for tackling what is surely the source of many of those unfortunate children’s mental health problems, the breakdown of the nuclear family, and the lack of fathers in children’s lives, due to the actions and inactions of malicious mothers, with state support.

So I was delighted to read an insightful and heartfelt piece by Laura Perrins, published today. It’s already attracted 91 comments, and received a well-deserved five star rating.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment