Category Archives: Men’s Rights

Did painted lady Charlotte Proudman learn the tricks of her trade by watching the Feminist Makeup Tutorial?


CharlotteProudmanBarristerCharlotte_Proudman

 

 

 

 

 

Alexander-Carter-SilkI bet Alexander Carter-Silk wishes he had watched the Feminist Makeup Tutorial, before he got caught!

 

 

Q. What do you call it when a woman thanks or lambastes  those who make compliments about her appearance, on the basis of their gender or age?

A. Discrimination.

 

New-Twitter-Bird-LogoPlease follow me on Twitter – and please follow this blog too, to be informed of new posts by email.

 

Other posts you may like

Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

Abolish rape!

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives

Children screaming to be heard

Let every child have both parents

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Men's Rights, Satire and humour

Children screaming to be heard

Vote “Let every child have both parents” on 7th May in North Cornwall.

BallotPaper

Please follow me New-Twitter-Bird-Logoon Twitter  …

… and please obey your conscience when you vote on 7th May.

SeeDadA4Fixture1

The 40 years-established registered charity Families Need Fathers (FNF), for which I designed the above poster by adapting an existing FNF poster, is not permitted officially to endorse the political party “Let every child have both parents”, or any other political party.

Watch a Head of School lie to the police, falsely claiming that there is a court order excluding a father from his four year-old son’s school Christmas play:

“Now we see the violence inherent in the system” 🙂

[Monthy Python and the Holy Grail]

Both parents.  Every child.  Wherever possible..

GoodbyeSon

The registered political party “Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them)” (J4MB), which owns the above poster, does not officially endorse “Let every child have both parents”, or vice versa. There is no J4MB candidate in North Cornwall.  There is no “Let every child have both parents” candidate in any of the constituencies in which there is a J4MB candidate.  However, this coincidence is not because of any pact or alliance between the two parties. 

“Let every child have both parents” was not a gendered issue in 1959, and there is no need to present it in a gendered manner today.  (It’s a powerful poster though.)

Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

1 Comment

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Human Rights, Law, Men's Rights

Man shaming and victim blaming: The A-Z of male suicide in the UK (Karen Woodall)

I think this piece by Karen Woodall (psychologist at the Family Separation Clinic) is excellent. She works with the parent and child victims of parental alienation.

Karen Woodall

I caught the end of the Panorama Programme on male suicide in the UK last night.  Whilst I know something about the statistics around male suicide and understand some of those things which stack up against men, causing loss of hope and a spiral into despair, even I was shocked that 100 men are killing themselves every week in the UK.

100 men every week.  It is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. It is happening in our country right now and yet, apart from the exhortation to ‘talk about it’, we have, as yet, no national strategy, no national awareness of what is happening and no real idea of what to do about it other than telling men they need to talk about it.

So it’s all their fault then and if only men would be more like women and talk about it…

View original post 1,345 more words

2 Comments

Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights, Feminism, Human Rights, Men's Rights, Mental health, Persecution of Minorities, Political, Reblogged

The Hampstead Witch Hunt – parental alienation taken to extremes

I spent an hour or so yesterday, reading Thursday’s judgment in the High Court hearing that is most aptly described as the Hampstead Witch Hunt.  I had decided to blog about the case myself, when Karen Woodall beat me to it, clicking on “publish” during the past hour or so.  So I’m reblogging Karen’s excellent post, after this short introduction.

The child abuser in this case (the alienating mother, helped by her newest boyfriend) was extremely imaginative, in her crafting of the false accusations against dad, which she “tortured”  her eight and nine year-old son and daughter children into making (as Mrs Justice Pauffley put it.)   The abusers immediate motive would have been the same as every other alienator: manufacturing an excuse for disrupting the children’s relationship with the other parent, so that the alienator could have the children all to himself or herself. But, oh boy, this alienator really went to town on the task!  And the false accusations have gone absolutely viral.

It is quite fascinating to observe how supportive of the perpetrator, Ella Draper, was Dr Hodes, the first of the expert witnesses to see the child victims.  She could have been Marietta Higgs using a new name to escape her past, judging by the bespoke medical evidence she prepared, which could hardly have been better tailored to lend a temporary credibility to the false accusations the children were tortured into making.

It is sobering to realise that these children were at risk of never being allowed to see their innocent father again, even though they quickly admitted that their accusations had been lies, once they had been reassured that they weren’t going to be sent home to mum in the immediate future.  The only thing that saved them from this fate, unlike a million and more other children who do not have such lucky escapes, was the sheer incredibility of the simply massive criminal witchcraft industry that that the children were tortured into alleging that their father led, in Hampstead.

Even after this judgment of Mrs Justice Pauffley, there is still a sizeable community on the internet who are dissatisfied with the findings of the official witch hunt (that there had been neither witches nor witchcraft, in the children’s lives).  They are continuing to conduct their own unofficial witch hunt, whilst demanding a reconvening of the official witch hunt over which judge Pauffley had presided, this time minded to try harder to catch the witches.

Not only are P and Q now seeing their father again, twice a week I last heard, and Skyping him daily from temporary foster care, they will be seeing rather less of their mother, for a while.  Until the Interpol arrest warrant out on Ms Ella Draper, alienatrice extraordinaire,  is executed, and she is extradited from wherever she is hiding back to the UK, they won’t be seeing mum at all.  I hope they do eventually get to see her again, though.  Let every child have both parents, wherever possible, even when their parents are rascals like this.

If the coached false accusations against dad had been less far-fetched, the children would have lost their dad, like Gagged Dad‘s son has lost his, to all practical intents and purposes.  Just like almost every child with an alienating dad loses his mum, or vice versa.

I have decided to stand for Parliament in May, over this one issue – the right of every child, where possible, to both parents.  The professionals backed Ella, at first.  Professionals alas often back the alienating parent, when there is parental alienation afoot.  If Ella had not over-egged the pudding, and thus sabotaged her own plot, the professionals would likely have ousted dad Ricky from his children’s lives completely and permanently, without a second thought.

New-Twitter-Bird-LogoFollow @John_Allman

Does someone you love hate you?

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 post 1,801 more words

8 Comments

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

Belgium to open its first shelter for battered men

I have reinstated this post, which I had removed for the duration of the election period so as not to dilute the core message of my campaign, because a question about this topic arose at the Stoke Climsland hustings last night.

DomesticViolence-against-men2-300x240

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

1. How many refuge 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. In the light of the Public Sector Equality Duty, 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)?

Women’s refuges, 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 available to battered men, and (often) their battered children, 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 (often suggested with some sarcasm) that merely perpetuates an artificial 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 in equal need of refuge; 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 on 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 member of the opposite sex socially, 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.

New-Twitter-Bird-LogoFollow @John_Allman

HalfTheProblem

Postscript, I wish to thank, publicly, Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first refuge for victims of intimate partner violence in the UK, for her brief words of encouragement recently.

See also: Masculism, Feminism and the Euro Tunnel

4 Comments

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

Abolish rape!

New-Twitter-Bird-LogoFollow @John_Allman

Trigger warning: This post is of a technical nature, albeit about an emotive subject.  The post is about particular British legislation.  It links to the sections of the relevant statute law that the article is about.  It is not the rant of a “rape apologist”.  Some have obviously completely misunderstood the argument that is carefully developed in this piece.  They have reacted emotionally at an early stage of reading, to the naturally distressing subject matter, instead of taking the trouble to read and to understand the entire article, before expressing anger at what they mistakenly think that the article is saying, without having read it and understood it.  Please read no further, if you cannot think about rape without becoming so angry that you lose your ability to reason, or to understand a quite subtle argument, of the sort that might be raised at the Committee Stage of the passage of a Bill through Parliament.  If that is you, then this article is not for you.

Continue reading

17 Comments

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

Ched Evans – a poor choice of battlefield for a gender 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 Sour), 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.

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Men's Rights