Extreme parental alienation

John Allman:

Yesterday, I spent what seemed like about an hour reading carefully the judgment about which Karen Woodall wrote during the past hour or so. I have been in touch about this case with Sabine McNeill for some time, trying to warn her about what was really going on. I had decided to blog about the case myself. But then thought that Karen would make a better job of that.  I was about to resume my search for Karen’s email address, to send her a link to the judgment, when notification arrived that Karen had beaten me to it. So, I am reblogging Karen’s post, and recommending to my readers reading Karen’s post, and also (please!) the judgment.

If the child abusers in this case (the alienating mother and her boyfriend) hadn’t been quite as stupid as they obviously were, when coaching the children to lie about their father, one wonders whether the innocent father would now be on bail, awaiting trial for child abuse himself.

Feminnazi-sceptics will enjoy the humilation of the “expert” witness Dr Hodges, to be found in the judgment.

Originally posted on Karen Woodall:

I cannot be the only one to feel immense relief on watching the news of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in the High Court this week, on the father who was supposedly a cult leader involved in importing babies to the UK in order to kill and eat them and dance around their skulls.  At least someone in the legal system is able to give a clear and unequivocal message, not only about the existence of satanic cults in Hampstead but on the way in which coaching a child to make false allegations of this nature is ‘torturing them.’  These children are now safe from the abuse that their mother and step father inflicted upon them, I cannot help but wonder about the mental and emotional health of their father who was at the centre of these allegations.

False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when that separation is…

View original 1,801 more words

1 Comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Feminism, Human Rights, Law, Men's Rights, Political, Reblogged

Gay dad’s mum births son and egg donor’s son as surrogate

According to 1959 Declaration on the Rights of the Child, it is a child’s right to be brought up by his or her parents “wherever possible”.  His mum and his dad, right?  Yes, both of them.  That was what the world believed in 1959.

Today, the new is a-buzz with howls of protest, that a gay man has fertilised the egg of an anonymous, donor mother, which was implanted into the womb of his own mother, who carried the child to term, as a surrogate mother.

What would Martin Niemoller say, if he was alive today?  Perhaps this?

First, using secret courts, they removed natural fathers and mothers from the lives of children who had known those fathers and mothers from birth.  But we were not those children’s parents, so we did nothing.  “There must be a reason”, we thought (if we even noticed).

Next they invented sperm banks, so that single women-and-girls could have children who would never know their fathers. But we were no longer children ourselves, and our empathy failed again.  We did nothing, apart from continuing to pay our taxes, which were now funding this child abuse.

IVF and surrogacy was invented.  This enabled single men to father children with anonymous, egg-donating mothers.  Mothers whom their sons and daughers would never meet.  But once again we did nothing.

In the name of equality, men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, were allowed to adopt the children that “they” had been ripping from their natural parents for decades.  But we didn’t want to be called bigots.  Still we did nothing.

We read many a touching story about a kind mother who had carried her own daughter’s foetus for her, as a surrogate mother, as well as a maternal grandmother.  We could see nothing wrong with this.  Rather we said, “Aah, isn’t that sweet?  Isn’t that noble?  Women and girls helping one another so sacrificially!” We did nothing, of course.

Finally, a “gay” man’s sperm fertilised the donated egg of the anonymous genetic mother whom his child would never meet, and his own mother carried that child to term, in her own womb.  (This, we thought, wasn’t at all sweet or noble of her, for some reason.  She was surrogate mother to her son’s baby (and a donor mother’s), not her daughter’s baby (and that of a donor father).  This gender-switch in the facts changed everything!)   As one, we decided not to do nothing, for a change.  Oh no, not this time!  We must rise up!  We must stand up against this evil!

Alas, we discovered, as we tried to stand up, by this stage we no longer had a leg left to stand on.


Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Human Rights, Satire and humour

Belgium to open its first shelter for battered men

John Allman:

Questions to ask (of Belgium and the UK), are:

1. How many places are there that are allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, or a priority-of-need basis, without discrimination against either sex? If we can have unisex toilets in this day and age, why on earth do we need ladies and gents shelters for refugees from domestic violence?

2. How can it possibly be lawful (in the UK, or Belgium), for a public authority to direct public funding towards organisations that openly practise sex discrimination (by earmarking refuge places as being for one sex only)? Such organisations, as a matter of policy, foster poor relations between men and women. This is an inevitable affect of isolating victims of domestic violence from the opposite sex. It is the deliberate segregation of the sexes at a time of crisis for each refugee, when he or she is in greatest danger of extrapolating his or her personal disappointment with the particular member of the opposite sex who used to batter him or her, into a general misogyny or misandry, as the case may be.

The solution to the shortage of refuge places that are not available to battered men, is NOT for “men’s” groups to create refuges that exclude women, and to apply for public sector funding. That is an absurd non-solution that merely perpetuates an artificial and absurd pseudo-problem that feeds off the real and serious problem of domestic violence.

Rather, the solution is to starve of funds, and to prosecute or to encourage victims to sue, refuges run by “women’s” groups that exclude men; to prosecute or to sue them for sex discrimination. Market forces will force those sexist organisations running shelters to become non-sexist. or to sell their businesses to others who are willing to operate those businesses in a non-sexist manner.

Probably the worst thing that one can do for many a refugee from an abusive relationship with a former intimate partner of the opposite sex, is to place them into an environment in which they never meet another members of the opposite sex, and especially where they never meet members of the opposite sex who are themselves refugees from domestic violence. This is likely to warp their perceptions, causing them to become entrenched in an erroneous belief system that the cause of domestic violence isn’t violent people of either sex, but rather an entire violent sex, about one half of the world’s population. This is likely to delay, or prevent permanently, their recovery.

Originally posted on Justice for men & boys:

Our thanks to AVfM for this. Belgium has 460 taxpayer-funded refuge places for female victims of domestic violence, and the two places for male victims might prove to be tokenism in time, but at least it’s a start. The longest journey starts with a single step…

View original


Filed under Uncategorized

What’s offensive about graphic images of abortion victims?

In this post, I pose a multiple-choice question that I hope you will find interesting.  I am posing it in a particular historical context, the “background” to the multiple-choice question, so-to-speak.  Please scroll down to the question, ignoring the background explanation that follows, if you think you already know the background, or don’t care what the background is.

The background

The single-issue group called Abort 67, sort-of “peacefully pickets” British abortion mills, not awfully close to the doors, and without blocking any pavements.  They are trained to speak only when they are spoken to.  They wear video cameras, to protect themselves from frequent false allegations that they have harassed others.  Ironically, this has led to accusations that they harass women, merely by wearing the cameras they wear only to protect themselves against false accusations of harassing women.

GraphicAbortionImagesAheadAbort 67 display what can be viewed as either “protesting” or “educational” pictures, of dead, aborted, human foetuses, depending on one’s bias.

Abort 67 would like the tide of public opinion to turn, rendering abortion “unthinkable” in the minds of the hoi polloi, whose votes the political class ostensibly still needs every five years, leading to a general clamour for the repeal of the Abortion Act 1967.

In the news as I am writing this, is some reactionary petition or other to Parliament, organised with some considerable help from the commercial abortion industry by all accounts, for whom Abort 67’s antics are bad for business.  The signatories of the petition number what amounts to about 0.15% of the death toll of human foetuses whose homicides the hated Abortion Act decriminalised.

The petitioners are not content with The Protection From Harassment Act 1997, which a client of mine is presently using against MI5 (a bit of a struggle), but which none of the abortionist firms have so far bothered to use against Abort 67 (a piece of cake in comparison, if their various press statements about Abort 67 “harassing” women and girls are true).   The abortionists who can’t be bothered to sue Abort 67, prefer instead to whine against the police, criticising the police for not protecting their businesses from free speech dialogue on the streets outside their death factories.  The police have already arrested Abort 67 staff, and then lost in court.  Once bitten, they are twice shy, all credit to them.

Not content with the excellent Protection From Harassment Act, the petitioners would like Parliament to pass a new, special law, mainly just to stop Abort 67 from continuing its work.  They are demanding exclusion zones, of a couple of hundred metres (if I remember correctly) from the nearest point within a parcel of land on which is built a place of trade of an abortion industry service provider.  Within any such exclusion zone, woe betide anybody who speaks ill of abortion, or even exposes, silently and pictorially, what abortion is and does, to whom.  Such exposure of the truth about abortion is harming the abortionists’ trade too much.

The multiple choice question

Enough of the background,  Here is the multiple choice question that I pose, to every reader.

Why are Abort 67’s pictures of abortion victims any more offensive a display than the carcasses hanging up on hooks, in an old-fashioned butcher’s shop?

(Please pause, to think hard about the question, until your brain hurts if necessary, and to answer it in your own words, before viewing the following multiple choices of popular answer, which includes a “none of the above” option at the end, for those of you with an original thought of his or her own on this hackneyed topic.)

Here’s the question again:

Why are Abort 67’s pictures of abortion victims any more offensive a display than the carcasses hanging up on hooks, in an old-fashioned butcher’s shop?

Ready to answer?

Options (please select one)

1. They’re not.  (I.e. Abort 67’s pictures of abortion victims are not any more offensive a display than the carcasses hanging up on hooks, in an old-fashioned butcher’s shop.)

2. Because, unlike the butcher’s carcasses, the deceased abortion victims’ mortal remains depicted, are recognisably and undeniably those of our fellow humans.

3. Because of the ******* patriarchy. ALRIGHT? (You stupid, evil, misogynistic bastard even for asking this question.)

4. Because those who see the pictures might anticipate that horrid people like you will go on to ask exactly this trick question. (Please explain why it is a “trick” question.)  I bet you even believe in the Sky Fairy (or Flying Spaghetti Monster), and want to force me to believe in Him too. Don’t you? Don’t you? Oh please say yes! That’s the argument I really want to have. Oh please let’s talk about religion, instead of abortion images!

5. Because the human appearance of the mortal remains of the abortionist’s victims is upsettingly deceptive.  You see, I believe in the non-scientific metaphysical doctrine of ensoulment/enpersonment (delete as applicable).  I believe that ensoulment/enpersonment (delete as applicable) does not take place until [……. ] (enter a number) days/weeks/lunar months/calendar months (delete as applicable) after conception, because [……………………….. ] (enter a reason for your metaphysical belief here; continue on a separate sheet if necessary).  This deception might upset mothers who are not yet as enlightened as I am, as to the  truth about ensoulment/enpersonment (delete as applicable) subsequent to the individual human’s beginnings.  This ensoulment/enpersonment (delete as applicable) doctrine denialist deception, based merely upon the superficial appearances that mere cameras naively photograph, might dissuade these rather stupid, vulnerable women, who trust cameras and believe their own eyes, from having necessary abortions; mistakenly taking at their deceptive face value, the deceptive images of the remains of the human victims of other mothers’ abortions; because these utter fools simply aren’t enlightened in the deeper wisdom embodied in the ensoulment/enpersonment (delete as applicable) true metaphysical doctrine to which I hold: enlightened enough to know that the abortion victims whose dead bodies were photographed remained less than fully human throughout all of their short lives, because they never reached the age of metaphysical ensoulment/enpersonment (delete as applicable); so it really was OK just to kill them after all, however human their dead bodies looked afterwards, to the camera.

6. Look, I don’t agree with age equality. It is an irrational value judgment. Not all humans are equal.  Such young humans as the victims of abortion, mere foetuses, are most especially not “equal” to their far older mothers.  (Please state clearly your reasons for disagreeing with the application of the widely accepted equality principle to humans of different ages.)  The rational and – what’s that buzz-word? – oh yes, agonising decision for a particular mother may therefore be to abort. Abort 67’s pictures might, offensively, cause cognitive dissonance, in particular feeble-minded women, who really ought to have abortions, rationally-speaking, but who are apt to be deceived by the obvious humanity of the young, but therefore unequal abortion victims depicted, into discomforting doubts as to whether their own foetus-children are fair game to be killed after all, merely because they are so young; potentially, leading them to decide wrongly to keep their babies after all, or at least to let them live, handing them over for adoption at birth.

7. Oh, I don’t know. Maybe something to do with the uterus?  Or the goddess?  Or women’s reproductive rights?  Or rape?  (Yes, rape sounds a promising distraction.)  Or intimate partner violence?  A “mere cluster of cells” perhaps?  (Admittedly a cluster neatly arranged to resemble a human body, or so the camera testifies, but so what?)  Or “reproductive autonomy” (whatever that means – the phrase sounded poignant enough when I first heard somebody else use it)?  Or empowerment of women?  Misogyny maybe?  Richard Dawkins?  Leviticus?  Aw heck, to do with something at least, for sure, even if I cannot quite put my finger on it for now.  Look, I just know that there is a reason the pictures are more offensive a display than the butcher’s shop carcasses, that has nothing to do with them having been people just as important as me, whose lives were cut short.  I just don’t know yet how to explain it properly.  Alright?  I had to choose between the Biology module and the Women’s Studies module.  Do you have a problem with that?  I don’t eat meat anyway.  If I am that kind to oxen, lambs, pigs and poultry, surely I’ve done my bit for mammals in general, without having to annoy the rent-a-quote complainers about Abort 67 on You Tube, by sticking up for humans too.  (Or some such nonsense.)

8. None of the above.  I have another, highly original reason of my own, for thinking that Abort 67’s pictures of abortion victims are more offensive a display than the carcasses hanging up on hooks, in an old-fashioned butcher’s shop.  (Please state what that other reason is.  If you don’t know, or cannot explain the reason coherently, then please just choose option 7 above  instead, not taking it too literally.)


Filed under Pro-life, Satire and humour

Abolish rape!

The criminal offence of “rape” should be abolished.  Seriously.  There is no need for it in this day and age.  The continuing existence of the archaic common law criminal offence of “rape”, nowadays enacted as a statutory criminal offence, is harming society.  It facilitates propaganda on the part of those anti-social elements within society who are antagonistic towards the “need” expressed in The Equality Act 2010 s149 “to foster good relations” between men and women.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 1 makes it a criminal offence, the offence called “rape”, for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.  This offence of rape is potentially punishable by life imprisonment. Section 1 should be repealed, and replaced with a measure to abolish the criminal offence of “rape”.  No man would ever again be charged with rape in the UK.  O happy day!  The archaic, gender-skewed offence of “rape” simply isn’t needed in the modern world of sexual equality.  It is obsolete.

Section 2 of the same Act also makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent.  This offence is called “assault by penetration”.  It is also potentially punishable by life imprisonment.  This offence should also be abolished too.  It isn’t needed either.

Section 4 is all that is needed.

Like ss1 and 2, s4 makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, punishable by life imprisonment.  The offence is called (in s4) “causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent”.  Section 4 should, of course, be retained.  Men who rape women can instead be convicted of this offence and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The beauty of section 4 is that it also makes it an offence for a woman to have sexual intercourse with a man without his consent.  If she does, and is convicted, she too can be sentenced to life imprisonment.  But her offence will not be called “rape”, and her male victim will not be described as a “rape victim”.

The only rational reason I can discern for anyone wishing to retain the separate offences of “rape” and “assault by penetration” that men commit against women, but women cannot commit against men, is that he or she desires the retention of an offence with an emotive and archaic name that has an anachronistically gender-asymmetric statutory definition.  Why?  So that he or she can assert loudly and wrathfully that men rape women, not the other way round. Why would anybody be gleeful at being able to assert this, loudly, angrily and often, as some do?  Because he or she wishes to continue working the mischief that has brought relations between men and women to their present-day a low ebb, to the detriment of children. the mischief of stirring up as much irrational anger between the two sexes as possible.

Once we have only the gender neutral section 4 offence to talk about, we shall have become able to talk about non-consensual sexual intercourse far more calmly and rationally.  There are certain populist rabble-rousers whom (I predict) this change to the language wouldn’t suit.  A few of them are notoriously outspoken MPs or civil servants in high office.  Let them come here, and argue their case with me!  I offer to make mincemeat of their sophistry.

As a matter of interest, at least one study in the USA has reported that sexual intercourse (and other acts covered by section 4 in the UK, such as oral sex) that carrying a life sentence here, to which the female victim did not consent, is slightly less common than such acts to which the male victim did not consent.  If this finding is even close to being correct, and is reflected in the sexual behaviour of British people too, then the larger number of men than women in prison for non-consensual sex acts, will cease to be quoted by certain demagogues, in the hope of whipping up even more misandry.  It will instead be quoted by men’s rights activists (misogynist or otherwise), as compelling evidence of a gender-asymmetric enforcement of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in relation to the identical male and female offences that rightly both carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

I challenge anybody to provide me with an honourable reason for his or her opposing the abolition of the criminal offence of “rape” that I am today proposing, so that the majority of us who see the perils of too much gender politics can discuss with less emotion, and in a non-gendered manner, the grave problem of sexual intercourse being inflicted upon non-consenting victims, which always carries a potential life sentence for male and female offenders alike.  The offence, that is, already defined in the catch-all section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.  The only offence that is needed in order to police non-consensual sex in society, which can enable this policing to be performed in a gender-neutral manner.


Filed under Feminism, Law, Men's Rights, Political, Righteousness

Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

One succinct definition of “feminism” is,

Feminism: The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

The complementary definition of “masculism” is,

Masculism: The advocacy of men’s rights on the ground of equality of the sexes.           

Using the above definitions, masculism and feminism can be seen to be like mirror image twins.  They are equally egalitarian; men’s rights advocacy and women’s rights advocacy, with neither group advocating the infringement of the rights of the gender that isn’t their main focus.

It is in these senses of the two words, that I am both a feminist and a masculist at heart and in deed.

Most of the human right’s advocacy I do, isn’t gendered at all.  (It is that which I enjoy most.)  Amongst the minority of my human rights advocacy work that has to be gendered, I feel that I contribute most effectively to the overall cause of gender equality, when I practise in masculism.  My feminist advocacy practice isn’t therefore extensive yet.

In everyday life, we can easily see just how much masculists and feminists are ultimately on the same side, the side of equality of the sexes, rather than the supremacy of one sex or the other.  We can see this harmonious complementarity in play, by witnessing masculists and feminists having their frequent, amicable, polite, reasonable, and fruitful dialogues, for example when trading good-hearted banter on Twitter.


It’s like building the Euro tunnel …

Masculism and feminism (as defined above) are just different parts of the same project.  They are analogous to the British and French teams that dug the Euro tunnel, starting from different shores, but eventually meeting in the middle, beneath the sea bed.
Imagine what chaos there might have been, if there had been a single Anglo-French team, instead of two teams doing the digging, in opposite directions. Unless every team member was bilingual, they’d have needed every detail of the project to be explained in two languages. One a dreadful, illogical language that sexualises toddlers as they first learn to talk, because it is a language in which everything (even tables, chairs and cutlery) is gendered, either masculine or feminine! The other English.
Imagine that this single, joint Anglo-French team, had started digging from only one of the two shores (selected by tossing a coin), leaving absolutely nobody digging from the other shore!  I doubt the tunnel would have been open even today, with that arrangement in place.
It would be even more chaotic if the pursuit of gender equality were to left to a single, artificially merged school of thought, half of whose adherents tried to mansplain everything, the other half of whom could understand nothing until it had been femsplained to them.
And that is why we need both feminism and masculism in the world today, in order to promote gender equality adequately, digging from both “shores”, so-to-speak.
The former corporate motto of the now-completed construction project for the channel tunnel,
Two shores.  One English Channel.  Two directions.  One tunnel.
Deux rives.  Une Manche.  Deux directions.  Un tunnel.
 inspires a new slogan, which expresses perfectly the good-natured co-operation we can see today between masculists and feminists.
Two sexes.  One equality.
Tu jest!  C’est notre égalité, pas le vôtre!  Vous êtes tous les misogynes!
Topical relevance
I was pleased to learn that Mike Buchanan had published the manifesto of the UK’s new masculist political party.
I am disappointed to have noticed that it has all gone rather quiet. on the other side of la Manche that separates masculists like Mr Buchanan from feminists like Harriet Harman.  Quiet, that is, since Ms Harman mooted her exciting and original idea of forming a feminist political party, in order to put women’s rights onto the political agenda at last.  “About time too,” I thought to myself at the time, “after so many decades of neglect.”
I do hope that Ms Harman’s plan to start a feminist political party hasn’t quietly been shelved.  It would lead to an imbalance, if Ms Harman did not stick to her excellent Plan A, now that Justice For Men and Boys has published its excellent, scholarly general election manifesto and announced its Prospective Parliamentary Candidates.
Footnote for Hegelians
Thesis + antithesis becomes synthesis, eventually.  But there is often a nomenclature struggle, even if the resolution is as clumsy as the NASUWT, the merger of NAS (National Association of Schoolmasters) with the UWT (Union of Women Teachers.)
Footnote for French-speaking people
Your word for a tunnel is “le tunnel”, which you consider to be a masculine inanimate object.  The French word for a thing that thrusts into a tunnel, in order to deliver its load to the other end of the tunnel, which the tunnel was created to receive (in English called a locomotive), is “la locomotive”, a feminine inanimate object, in French.  How do you frenchsplain that?
It seems kinky enough to us Anglophones that you French people apparently consider that everything in the entire world has to be gendered in the first place.  That is even before we begin to discover how exactly you gender some things, often surprising us, because many of those French decisions about how things are gendered, to your quintessentially French way of thinking, often seems thoroughly counter-intuitive to us, nay perversely unnatural.


Filed under Family Rights, Feminism, Political, Satire and humour

Ched Evans – a poor choice of battlefield for a gender politics culture war pitched battle

There is a multitude of questions to consider and to debate, concerning Mr Ched Evans..

  1. Is the law under which this offender was convicted, just?
  2. Did the judge direct the jury correctly? If so, why did the jury apparently reach a finding of fact that the victim was so drunk as to be incapable of giving informed consent to sexual intercourse, given that evidence of that incapacity to consent seems, at best flimsy, to many who (like myself) came at this story with an open mind?
  3. Was the jury’s verdict perverse? If so, why did the jury reach a perverse verdict?
  4. Given the reluctance of the Court of Appeal to overturn jury verdicts without new evidence, what sort of new evidence does Mr Ched need now to produce, in order to sustain an appeal, and where is he going to get that new evidence from?
  5. Is it virtuous for members of the public to seek to bring moral and economic pressure upon potential employers of a convicted offender, now paroled and looking for work, in order to disrupt the rehabilitation of one particularly offender? If so, why is that virtuous?
  6. Is a convicted offender denying his guilt, after serving his sentence, a relevant consideration, when deciding whether to offer a released convict employment, so that he can rejoin society?
  7. Ought potential employers of this particular convicted offender to give in to public moral and economic pressure, aimed at preventing this offender’s rehabilitiation? How can potential employers be expected not to give in to the mob, if funding offered for a new stadium (for example) is at stake?
  8. How is the victim ever going to sue the alleged perpetrator for damages in a civil action, if mob rule ensures that he remains unemployable?
  9. Why should this particularly complicated case have become the battle field which it has become, of a pitched battle in the gender politics war?
  10. Which of the above questions is it the the gender politics culture warriors hope to settle, by choosing this case for its next pitched battle?

The chances of anybody getting the chance even to read out the above list of questions during a four-minute slot on sound bite radio, say a dumbed-down magazine format like Woman’s Hour, is slim. This case needs an hour-long programme of its own, like Radio 4’s Analysis, because there aren’t just two opposing camps, who give opposite answers to all ten questions. There are ten distinct questions that need debating, not just one.


Filed under Feminism, Men's Rights